Kalam
Senior Member
- Mar 5, 2009
- 8,866
- 785
- 48
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The problem with this argument, I think, is that it implies either that the universe created itself from nothing.
A cannot create A.
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 timeYou are implying that the universe brought itself into existence.
You're also implying that God would be bound by the constraints of space and time
We can conclude that God is not material.
Like our thoughts, it can be concluded that God only "exists" as some sort of abstract reality
Our thoughts exist independently of space and time,
yet we're able to say with confidence that some precede other thoughts and certain events that occur in the physical universe.
Some even lead to certain events that occur in the physical universe
Can the case not be the same with God?
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.Nothing 'created' the universe. Causation is impossible without time, as causation stems from something occurring because something else occurred at another point in time
What is axiomatically impossible is your notion of the universe popping into existence.You're assuming a creator exists where one is axiomatically 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.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
Descartes would disagree.The fact that you can imagine something does not mean it exists.
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.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
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?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.
Blink manually.Clarify
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.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?'
I guess I've neglected responding to this for a while.
That applies to causal relationships between physical entities
or at all. What made god? you insist that nothing comes from nothing. Where did you r god come from?. A prime mover could not conceivably exist physically.
within the physical universe, this is true. You are applying the laws of the current form of the universe to conditions not within it.. Nothing is self-causing
Nothing says it can'tThe universe had a beginning... you're implying that it simply began to exist.
Because you say so? I have demonstrated how a cause is impossible.What is axiomatically impossible is your notion of the universe popping into existence.
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.
Descartes would disagree.
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.
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?
It is neither needed or possible. Yours is a god of the gaps, and your arguments are all born of ignoranceIf 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.
I hope you didn't get too upset.I noticed
No, not really. You're assuming that non-physical entities are governed by physical laws. This is illogical.Wrong. It applies a causal relationship between any things.
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."or at all. What made god? you insist that nothing comes from nothing. Where did you r god come from?
This is what you're doing.within the physical universe, this is true. You are applying the laws of the current form of the universe to conditions not within it.
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.Nothing says it can't
You've correctly demonstrated that a physical cause is impossible.Because you say so? I have demonstrated how a cause is impossible.
A waste of whose time?In short, your god is nothing and a waste of time
I don't agree with his ontological philosophy, but he's not someone whose teachings can be rejected out of hand.Many have refuted and pwned Descartes
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.Yet you build around Islam.
Yet I'm not the one who takes refuge in making argumenta ad hominem.Again, you fail at logic.
Are you familiar with this guy?Demonstrate that there is another force at work.
...
All of them acting together
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.It is neither needed or possible. Yours is a god of the gaps, and your arguments are all born of ignorance
No, not really. You're assuming that non-physical entities are governed by physical laws. This is illogical.
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.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
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.Whatever is at the beginning of that chain is what I understand to be "God."
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.
You've correctly demonstrated that a physical cause is impossible.
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,
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.
]Mine is a God of a single gap.
That gap cannot be adequately explained away by any natural occurrence,
kalam said:Whatever is at the beginning of that chain is what I understand to be "God."
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.You're assuming that the laws present within the universe are applicable to the creation of the universe. This is illogical.
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?Nor is the 'birth' of the universe.
Yeah, my keys currently exist on the table next to me. That doesn't mean that they spontaneously began existing there.The difference is that the universe is known to exist where there is no evidence for your god.
A complex God is illogical.God is too complex to come about by chance
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.If the universe does not come to an end,
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.the chain is infinite
I don't subscribe to string theory or Tolkien's idea of musical genesis.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.
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.No, id doesn't. Again, you're applying the laws within the universe in its current form to universe outside of it.
Semantics. You're welcome to put it that way, but it doesn't change what I said.Every beginning is an event
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. 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.
Strawman. I didn't argue that knowledge of specific components can be gleaned simply by examining an aggregate.wrong. The laws that explain the stars do not explain molecules.
Absolute nonexistence implies absolute nonexistence, not abrupt and uncaused appearances of contingent physical entities.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.
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.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'
You'd better inform Ockham of that.keep cutting. Occam's razor leaves us with no deity
Whatever you say.Because you fail at logic.
They lead to death and slaughter if used improperly. Used correctly, they lead to unity.No, they can't They lead only to death and slaughter, just like its predecessors.
I've found what I was looking for as far as morality is concerned, thanks.What you looking for is the moral instinct combined with humanism and the 'golden rule'- that is moral instinct + social contract ethics
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.Yes, it does, because they claim to draw their authority from such a being
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.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.
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.Such a gap does not exist. I have shown thig, but you are too thick and arrogant to process it.
Alright, man, if you say so.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.
. 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?
Yeah, my keys currently exist on the table next to me. That doesn't mean that they spontaneously began existing there.
A complex God is illogical.
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.
What universe outside of it? In your hypothesis, nothing exists outside of it.
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
Strawman. I didn't argue that knowledge of specific components can be gleaned simply by examining an aggregate.
Absolute nonexistence implies absolute nonexistence,
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.
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
kalam said:Whatever is at the beginning of that chain is what I understand to be "God."
so once again
kalam said: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 ?
Are you trying to offend me or something? You're failing. Go troll some other thread.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
No, you're pretty much the undisputed holder of that title.so the god is more stupid than most stupid idiot, isn't it ?
we have got a troll
U 2, and you are a doltSaid1 said:Better, an ESL troll. U R funny.
no I don't, I only infer certain obvious conclusions (with which you are unable to discuss, except shouting, Crank), and don't trollkalam said:Are you trying to offend me or something?
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.no I don't, I only infer certain obvious conclusions