The Kalam Cosmological Argument Discussion

[Kalam]

The problem with this argument, I think, is that it implies either that the universe created itself from nothing.

A cannot create A.

...We agree.

 

[JBeukema]

You are implying that the universe brought itself into existence.

WRONG. You fail at logic. Nothing 'created' the universe. Causation is impossible without time, as causation stems from something occurring because something else occurred at another point in time

You're also implying that God would be bound by the constraints of space and time

You're assuming a creator exists where one is axiomatically impossible

We can conclude that God is not material.

We cannot logically conclude any deity must exists- let alone that your god must exist. Even if your argument weren't fallacious, it would support deism- not your religion or any other

Like our thoughts, it can be concluded that God only "exists" as some sort of abstract reality

The fact that you can imagine something does not mean it exists. Even if it did, it would mean that leprechauns, hobbits, and countless personal gods exist- not your god or any other. The cosmological argument is suited to deists and satanists, not to any 'formal' organized religion or any form form of monotheistic theism

Our thoughts exist independently of space and time,

Our 'thoughts' exist as a physical state of our brains and eletro-chemical conditions. Your are assuming a 'ghost in the machine' where none can be demonstrated to exist.

yet we're able to say with confidence that some precede other thoughts and certain events that occur in the physical universe.

See above. Our thoughts exist/emerge from the physical state of our brains.

Some even lead to certain events that occur in the physical universe

Clarify

Can the case not be the same with God?

You have yet to demonstrate your god exists; the above is not a valid question any more than 'cannot the case not be the same with DNOAUBNE, the magical fairy dragon from the land of OGHARTHET?'

 

[Kalam]

I guess I've neglected responding to this for a while.

Nothing 'created' the universe. Causation is impossible without time, as causation stems from something occurring because something else occurred at another point in time

That applies to causal relationships between physical entities. A prime mover could not conceivably exist physically. Moreover, you're attempting to draw attention away from one of your argument's most significant shortcomings. Nothing is self-causing. The universe had a beginning... you're implying that it simply began to exist.

You're assuming a creator exists where one is axiomatically impossible

What is axiomatically impossible is your notion of the universe popping into existence.

We cannot logically conclude any deity must exists- let alone that your god must exist. Even if your argument weren't fallacious, it would support deism- not your religion or any other

The God I believe in is non-interfering and possesses no effable attributes or characteristics. I don't see how that's inconsistent with the argument.

The fact that you can imagine something does not mean it exists.

Descartes would disagree.

Even if it did, it would mean that leprechauns, hobbits, and countless personal gods exist- not your god or any other. The cosmological argument is suited to deists and satanists, not to any 'formal' organized religion or any form form of monotheistic theism

Islam is simply a basis upon which my personal philosophy and morality is built. It isn't something that I'm attempting to prove through cosmological arguments; this discussion doesn't necessarily carry any religious implications as far as I'm concerned. That a God exists doesn't necessarily mean that God favors Islam over Christianity or vice versa.

Our 'thoughts' exist as a physical state of our brains and eletro-chemical conditions. Your are assuming a 'ghost in the machine' where none can be demonstrated to exist.

Electrochemical processes aren't the sole determinants of our thoughts. If that were the case, why would we have the ability to think abstractly? What electrochemical process, what physical occurrence outside of my own consciousness determines the directions of my trains of thought?

Clarify

Blink manually.

You have yet to demonstrate your god exists; the above is not a valid question any more than 'cannot the case not be the same with DNOAUBNE, the magical fairy dragon from the land of OGHARTHET?'

If the existence of Dnoaubne, the magical fairy dragon from the land of Orgarthet, is necessary to explain the existence of something else, I suppose he exists. You'd have to demonstrate that logically, though.

 

[JBeukema]

I guess I've neglected responding to this for a while.

I noticed

That applies to causal relationships between physical entities

Wrong. It applies a causal relationship between any things.

. A prime mover could not conceivably exist physically.

or at all. What made god? you insist that nothing comes from nothing. Where did you r god come from?

. Nothing is self-causing

within the physical universe, this is true. You are applying the laws of the current form of the universe to conditions not within it.

The universe had a beginning... you're implying that it simply began to exist.

Nothing says it can't

What is axiomatically impossible is your notion of the universe popping into existence.

Because you say so? I have demonstrated how a cause is impossible.

The God I believe in is non-interfering and possesses no effable attributes or characteristics. I don't see how that's inconsistent with the argument.

In short, your god is nothing and a waste of time

Descartes would disagree.

Many have refuted and pwned Descartes

Islam is simply a basis upon which my personal philosophy and morality is built. It isn't something that I'm attempting to prove through cosmological arguments; this discussion doesn't necessarily carry any religious implications as far as I'm concerned. That a God exists doesn't necessarily mean that God favors Islam over Christianity or vice versa.

Yet you build around Islam. Again, you fail at logic.

Electrochemical processes aren't the sole determinants of our thoughts

Demonstrate that there is another force at work.

If that were the case, why would we have the ability to think abstractly? What electrochemical process, what physical occurrence outside of my own consciousness determines the directions of my trains of thought?

All of them acting together

If the existence of Dnoaubne, the magical fairy dragon from the land of Orgarthet, is necessary to explain the existence of something else, I suppose he exists.

It is neither needed or possible. Yours is a god of the gaps, and your arguments are all born of ignorance

 

[Kalam]

I noticed

I hope you didn't get too upset.

Wrong. It applies a causal relationship between any things.

No, not really. You're assuming that non-physical entities are governed by physical laws. This is illogical.

or at all. What made god? you insist that nothing comes from nothing. Where did you r god come from?

See above. God isn't energy. God is not bound by laws of thermodynamics that imply a beginning to God's existence. Moreover, a causal chain cannot be infinitely long. Whatever is at the beginning of that chain is what I understand to be "God."

within the physical universe, this is true. You are applying the laws of the current form of the universe to conditions not within it.

This is what you're doing.

Nothing says it can't

Logic says it can't. Every beginning involves an event; every event is preceded by a separate event with which it shares a causal relationship. The universe is nothing more than the aggregate of its components, and it must be assumed that it's bound by the same limitations that bind the actions of those components. We more or less know this to be the case with thermodynamics. There's absolutely nothing suggesting that the case is any different with causality.

Because you say so? I have demonstrated how a cause is impossible.

You've correctly demonstrated that a physical cause is impossible.

In short, your god is nothing and a waste of time

A waste of whose time?

In this argument, Ockham's razor can be applied to God until nearly all of the human attributes and emotions ascribed to God by conventional religious doctrines are cut away. What we seem to be left with in this case is an entity whose only necessary characteristic is consciousness, and whose only necessary function was the initial stimulation of the universe's expansion. If you mean "nothing" in this sense, or in the sense that God doesn't exist physically, or in the sense that God does not seem to interfere in the happenings of the physical universe, I agree.

Many have refuted and pwned Descartes

I don't agree with his ontological philosophy, but he's not someone whose teachings can be rejected out of hand.

Yet you build around Islam.

I build my morals around Islam. I'd do that whether I thought God existed or not. I'm not a Muslim because of the supposed benefits that status brings in the hereafter, but because Qur'anic teachings interpreted and applied correctly can, IMO, lead to a better life here. The existence or nonexistence of God has no effect on the applicability of those Islamic teachings that relate to relationships between people.

Again, you fail at logic.

Yet I'm not the one who takes refuge in making argumenta ad hominem.

Demonstrate that there is another force at work.

...

All of them acting together

Are you familiar with this guy?

John Carew Eccles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I disagree with him regarding religion, his philosophy of the mind seems to be close to what I believe. His credentials certainly speak for themselves as far as the human brain is concerned.

More:
"John Eccles on Mind and Brain" by David Pratt

Also, Karl Popper:
http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/popper80.pdf

We're getting off-topic. We should try to drop the subject of the human mind or start a separate thread discussing it.

It is neither needed or possible. Yours is a god of the gaps, and your arguments are all born of ignorance

Mine is a God of a single gap. That gap cannot be adequately explained away by any natural occurrence, and will continue to serve as proof of the soundness of the Kalam cosmological argument unless, by some inconceivable miracle, it is accounted for during the course of human existence. I'll gladly defer to you on that day.

 

[JBeukema]

No, not really. You're assuming that non-physical entities are governed by physical laws. This is illogical.

You're assuming that the laws present within the universe are applicable to the creation of the universe. This is illogical.

See above. God isn't energy. God is not bound by laws of thermodynamics that imply a beginning to God's existence.

Nor is the 'birth' of the universe. The difference is that the universe is known to exist where there is no evidence for your god.

God is too complex to come about by chance

Moreover, a causal chain cannot be infinitely long

If the universe does not come to an end, the chain is infinite

Whatever is at the beginning of that chain is what I understand to be "God."

then it is a meaningless term. 'God' is an alternate universe, a false vacuum, or a 'skin' or 'plane' of another world? Is god a superstring? if so, then Tolkien is right and the vibrating strings are the music he speaks of and describes creating the universe.

Logic says it can't

No, id doesn't. Again, you're applying the laws within the universe in its current form to universe outside of it.

Every beginning involves an event;

Every beginning is an event

every event is preceded by a separate event with which it shares a causal relationship

Wrong. Again, you're applying laws where the do not apply. prior to the beginning of time, there is no such 'causal event' or 'prior event'- such is impossible by definition.

. The universe is nothing more than the aggregate of its components, and it must be assumed that it's bound by the same limitations that bind the actions of those components.

wrong. The laws that explain the stars do not explain molecules. The conditions within the universe cannot be assumed to be the same as those outside of or 'before' the universe- there is no reason to believe the same laws apply.

We more or less know this to be the case with thermodynamics. There's absolutely nothing suggesting that the case is any different with causality.

Again, that which applies within the universe in its current state cannot be extrapolated to conditions outside that in which they occur.

You've correctly demonstrated that a physical cause is impossible.

I have demonstrated that any causal relationship even remotely resembling anything we're familiar with is impossible as there is no 'earlier' or 'before'

In this argument, Ockham's razor can be applied to God until nearly all of the human attributes and emotions ascribed to God by conventional religious doctrines are cut away. What we seem to be left with in this case is an entity whose only necessary characteristic is consciousness,

keep cutting. Occam's razor leaves us with no deity

I build my morals around Islam.

Because you fail at logic.

I'd do that whether I thought God existed or not. I'm not a Muslim because of the supposed benefits that status brings in the hereafter, but because Qur'anic teachings interpreted and applied correctly can, IMO, lead to a better life here.

No, they can't They lead only to death and slaughter, just like its predecessors. What you looking for is the moral instinct combined with humanism and the 'golden rule'- that is moral instinct + social contract ethics

The existence or nonexistence of God has no effect on the applicability of those Islamic teachings that relate to relationships between people.

Yes, it does, because they claim to draw their authority from such a being

]Mine is a God of a single gap.

that makes it a god of a gap- a gap that does not really exist. it's an argument born of ignorance and inability to grasp the nature of things.

That gap cannot be adequately explained away by any natural occurrence,

Such a gap does not exist. I have shown thig, but you are too thick and arrogant to process it.

and will continue to serve as proof of the soundness of the Kalam cosmological argument You have no argument and you have been thoroughly refuted. That you refuse to admit it shows that you are dishonest and bullheaded and not interested in uncovering the truth.

 

[ST34]

Whatever is at the beginning of that chain is what I understand to be "God."

there is a theory that the universe came into being from the vacuum, then if your god is the 'beginning of chain' then your god is the vacuum (on this ground); but the vacuum can't speak, can't think, can't move etc. so your god is so stupid that even can't think or say even one word

so the god is more stupid than most stupid idiot, isn't it ?

 

[Kalam]

You're assuming that the laws present within the universe are applicable to the creation of the universe. This is illogical.

Your belief is that the universe simply came into existence. It's mine that involves creation, and it's you who is attempting to apply physical laws to non-physical entities.

Nor is the 'birth' of the universe.

Your scenario involves absolute nonexistence, and poof - there's the universe. How did the universe bring itself into existence? If that were the case, how did it have the capacity to do so before it existed? Why, if no conscious entity was involved in its creation, did it randomly begin existing ~14 billion years ago? If it could simply spring into existence, there's no logical reason for it not having existed since some time in the infinite past. Is the universe conscious? Did it "choose" to exist?

The difference is that the universe is known to exist where there is no evidence for your god.

Yeah, my keys currently exist on the table next to me. That doesn't mean that they spontaneously began existing there.

God is too complex to come about by chance

A complex God is illogical.

If the universe does not come to an end,

The rapidity of its expansion is increasing steadily. It isn't going to collapse in some sort of "Big Crunch"; it will presumably expand until it experiences heat death, thus coming to an end.

the chain is infinite

Set theory, dude. Even if the universe continued to exist indefinitely, it would only be infinite in one direction. The chain would still have had an identifiable beginning.

-------> = potential infinity, not infinite but can always be lengthened by successive addition.

<-----> = actual infinity, already at infinite length.

Your stamp collection is a potential infinity. A completed collection containing an infinite number of stamps would be an an actual infinity.

then it is a meaningless term. 'God' is an alternate universe, a false vacuum, or a 'skin' or 'plane' of another world? Is god a superstring? if so, then Tolkien is right and the vibrating strings are the music he speaks of and describes creating the universe.

I don't subscribe to string theory or Tolkien's idea of musical genesis.

"God" is/was a conscious, cosmological prime mover. Beyond that I refuse to make assumptions.

No, id doesn't. Again, you're applying the laws within the universe in its current form to universe outside of it.

What universe outside of it? In your hypothesis, nothing exists outside of it. There is no existence outside of it. Yet you believe that the notion of spontaneous existence from absolute nonexistence is more logical than the notion of a cosmological unmoved mover that exists distinctly from the physical universe. Don't kid yourself into thinking that your premises are any less contestable than mine, man. Really, the only main difference between our arguments is their respective views of the nature of causality.

Every beginning is an event

Semantics. You're welcome to put it that way, but it doesn't change what I said.

Wrong. Again, you're applying laws where the do not apply. prior to the beginning of time, there is no such 'causal event' or 'prior event'- such is impossible by definition.

Time as you describe it only exists insofar as we must view events in relation to "time" to make any sense of them. The same thing is true with space, as both seem to be fundamentally related. As time allows us to describe intervals between events, space allows us to describe distances between physical entities. Both are simply concepts that allow us to understand existence as it is today and do not really exist physically. Because a conscious entity existing outside of the physical universe would not conceivably have to rely on relative position and change in position as references for space and time as we do, its ability to stimulate responses and create wouldn't be limited by the supposed absence of energy and movement. The principle of cause and effect is still satisfied.

wrong. The laws that explain the stars do not explain molecules.

Strawman. I didn't argue that knowledge of specific components can be gleaned simply by examining an aggregate.

The conditions within the universe cannot be assumed to be the same as those outside of or 'before' the universe- there is no reason to believe the same laws apply.

Absolute nonexistence implies absolute nonexistence, not abrupt and uncaused appearances of contingent physical entities.

Again, that which applies within the universe in its current state cannot be extrapolated to conditions outside that in which they occur.

I have demonstrated that any causal relationship even remotely resembling anything we're familiar with is impossible as there is no 'earlier' or 'before'

Yes, there is. Before the universe existed as it does today, it is generally believed that it existed as a singularity or in a similar infinitesimally compressed and extremely hot state. Matter predates the post-Big Bang universe, not nothingness. The universe 14 billion years ago began rapidly stretching and cooling.

keep cutting. Occam's razor leaves us with no deity

You'd better inform Ockham of that.

Because you fail at logic.

Whatever you say.

No, they can't They lead only to death and slaughter, just like its predecessors.

They lead to death and slaughter if used improperly. Used correctly, they lead to unity.

What you looking for is the moral instinct combined with humanism and the 'golden rule'- that is moral instinct + social contract ethics

I've found what I was looking for as far as morality is concerned, thanks.

Yes, it does, because they claim to draw their authority from such a being

Obviously. You're aware that people at the time were largely unwilling to accept anything unless someone put God's signature on it. We're at a point today where systems and ways of life can be accepted or rejected based on their merits rather than their supposed divine sponsorship.

that makes it a god of a gap- a gap that does not really exist. it's an argument born of ignorance and inability to grasp the nature of things.

Ignorance of what? Do you think that I've always presumed that a deity exists and am simply trying to reconcile my deep-seated religious beliefs with logic? No, I've looked into this extensively and arrived at a conclusion based on what I read and on my own reasoning. I began with zero assumptions or expectations after becoming disillusioned with mainstream Islam and Christianity and later with atheism.

Such a gap does not exist. I have shown thig, but you are too thick and arrogant to process it.

I think it's evident which one of us is being arrogant and which is willing at least to entertain the other's postulations. If I felt compelled to share your position I'd do so because, IMO, I've nothing to lose in adopting a belief that I feel makes more sense. I disagree with you about causality. Both arguments are valid, the soundness of each is debatable. Neither is technically more "logical" than the other and our disagreement boils down to a fundamental difference in opinion, neither side of which can now be supported by anything but baseless conjecture. Since we seem to agree about almost everything relevant to this discussion other than causality before the Big Bang and its implications, this particular discussion is quickly becoming pointless.

Also, I've been uncharacteristically civil ITT. Don't try to ruin that.

You have no argument and you have been thoroughly refuted. That you refuse to admit it shows that you are dishonest and bullheaded and not interested in uncovering the truth.

Alright, man, if you say so.

If I was able to be an atheist without dogmatically proclaiming the absolute truth of my position, I'm sure you can pull it off as well.

 

[JBeukema]

. How did the universe bring itself into existence?

I already explained this. The universe did not 'bring itself into existence', it does not act with a will of its own,and it could not cause anything prior to its existence. How many times must I explain this?

If that were the case, how did it have the capacity to do so before it existed? Why, if no conscious entity was involved in its creation, did it randomly begin existing ~14 billion years ago?

What do you mean, 'randomly'? Randomness isn;t even applicable here.

If it could simply spring into existence, there's no logical reason for it not having existed since some time in the infinite past

There is no 'before' or 'past'. There is no 'prior'. Time as we know it is a condition of the universe, a part of the 'fabric' of the universe itself. Why can you not comprehend this simple matter? No wonder everyone else gave up on trying to explain anything to you

Is the universe conscious? Did it "choose" to exist?

Now you're just being stupid again

Yeah, my keys currently exist on the table next to me. That doesn't mean that they spontaneously began existing there.

A very poor strawman. Whether something exists does not reflect on whether it was 'created'. Now you're just trying to be a dishonest weasel about things.

A complex God is illogical.

You cannot demonstrate that in any way. You're not even trying to make a lick of sense anymore, are you?

The rapidity of its expansion is increasing steadily. It isn't going to collapse in some sort of "Big Crunch"; it will presumably expand until it experiences heat death, thus coming to an end.

"God" is/was a conscious, cosmological prime mover. Beyond that I refuse to make assumptions.

You've decided that you've enough illogical presuppositions?

What universe outside of it? In your hypothesis, nothing exists outside of it.

I never made that statement. You're being dishonest, again.

Time as you describe it only exists insofar as we must view events in relation to "time" to make any sense of them. The same thing is true with space, as both seem to be fundamentally relate

Wong. Spacetime came into being at the 'birth' of the universe.

Strawman. I didn't argue that knowledge of specific components can be gleaned simply by examining an aggregate.

Yes, you did. You implied it by assuming that you can extrapolate that which applies to A and apply it outside of A- when logic dictates that you can do no such thing in sthis case

Absolute nonexistence implies absolute nonexistence,

Now what are you babbling about?

Yes, there is. Before the universe existed as it does today, it is generally believed that it existed as a singularity or in a similar infinitesimally compressed and extremely hot state

not really. That's a convenient way to picture things just before and/or in the very first stages of inflation

. Matter predates the post-Big Bang universe, not nothingness.

Matter could not exist in the conditions of the inflation (early stages). Even the lightest elements only came into being as things began to cool.

Once again, I see why the others gave up on trying to enlighten you

 

[Kalam]

No wonder everyone else gave up on trying to explain anything to you

Now you're just trying to be a dishonest weasel about things.

You're not even trying to make a lick of sense anymore, are you?

Once again, I see why the others gave up on trying to enlighten you

Now what are you babbling about?

Now you're just being stupid again

Look, if you want to turn this into a lame-ass pissing contest, I'm out of here. You had plenty of chances to put on a fresh pair of Pampers and at least attempt to maintain some semblance of civility, but you opted instead to continue spouting puerile insults at me for daring to disagree with your atheist dogma. Christ, I thought that if I laid off the insults for a change, you'd stop being such a little bitch to everyone. So much for that.

 

[JBeukema]

you got progressively more dishonest as you an out of fallacies and bad arguments- now you quit.

 

[Amanda]

I think of creation as an orgasm. I don't know what caused it, but I can't help but see the analogy.

 

[JBeukema]

I think of creation as an orgasm. I don't know what caused it, but I can't help but see the analogy.

it seemed great at the time but now there are way too many kids?

 

[ST34]

so once again

Whatever is at the beginning of that chain is what I understand to be "God."

there is a theory that the universe came into being from the vacuum, then if your god is the 'beginning of chain' then your god is the vacuum (on this ground); but the vacuum can't speak, can't think, can't move etc. so your god is so stupid that even can't think or say even one word

so the god is more stupid than most stupid idiot, isn't it ?

 

[Said1]

so once again

whatever is at the beginning of that chain is what i understand to be "god."

there is a theory that the universe came into being from the vacuum, then if your god is the 'beginning of chain' then your god is the vacuum (on this ground); but the vacuum can't speak, can't think, can't move etc. So your god is so stupid that even can't think or say even one word

so the god is more stupid than most stupid idiot, isn't it ?

lolz

 

[Kalam]

there is a theory that the universe came into being from the vacuum, then if your god is the 'beginning of chain' then your god is the vacuum (on this ground); but the vacuum can't speak, can't think, can't move etc. so your god is so stupid that even can't think or say even one word

Are you trying to offend me or something? You're failing. Go troll some other thread.

so the god is more stupid than most stupid idiot, isn't it ?

No, you're pretty much the undisputed holder of that title.

 

[ST34]

we have got a troll (said1)

 

[Said1]

we have got a troll

Better, an ESL troll. U R funny.

 

[ST34]

Better, an ESL troll. U R funny.

U 2, and you are a dolt

Are you trying to offend me or something?

no I don't, I only infer certain obvious conclusions (with which you are unable to discuss, except shouting, Crank), and don't troll

 

[Kalam]

no I don't, I only infer certain obvious conclusions

You're trying to elicit an emotional response form me by trollishly and lamely attacking my beliefs. You must work for Jyllands-Posten. Head on back to the flame zone.