• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Magical Wand

Active Member
The reason why we have many stars and planets in this universe is because entropy started low (when matter appeared it was organized in a low entropy state)

The only point that I made is that other “bubbles” (other big bangs) would have been different, in some “bubbles” entropy was low in other entropy was high (and therefore few if any stars and planets)

With entropy I am talking about once you already have matter

You sure did. But we've already discussed this assertion of yours. I don't understand what this has to do with your other claim, i.e., "my point is that in your model there are big bangs where black holes predominated an [sic] that have few (if any stars)"
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
The question about black holes dominating could be relevant if different bubbles have different scalar field interaction conditions at the boundary (= different vacuum conditions, different physics)
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
But that would be resolved simply by saying “this in fact solves the fine tuning problem because of course we’d find ourselves asking the question in a universe that isn’t dominated by them (black holes)”
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You sure did. But we've already discussed this assertion of yours. I don't understand what this has to do with your other claim, i.e., "my point is that in your model there are big bangs where black holes predominated an [sic] that have few (if any stars)"

Only universes (bubbles) that star with low entropy can have stars and planets.

a universe that started with high entropy would be dominated by black holes with few (if any stars)
 

Magical Wand

Active Member
Only universes (bubbles) that star [sic] with low entropy can have stars and planets.

a universe that started with high entropy would be dominated by black holes with few (if any stars) [sic]

She already replied to your claim above.

Plus, I would add your argument can't even get off the ground if the premise that different bubbles start with significantly different entropy levels is false. And we've already argued it is false.
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
In my experience atheists tend to dance around the KCA but they usually don't explain with clear words their point of disagreement.

  1. In this context "universe" means " all phisical reality" (including time) universe simply means all the natural world.

  1. The claim is that regardless if there was something before the big bang or not , there was an absolute begining at some point in the past.
So what is wrong with the KCA? Do you agree with premise 1? Do you agree with premise 2? Does the conclusion follows from the premises?

What exactly do you think is wrong with the argument? Please try to provide direct and clear answers.

There are only 3 alternatives

1 the universe (the physical/ natural world) came from nothing (literally nothing)

2 the universe has always existed, it is eternal

3 the universe has a cause (which by definition would have to be a supernatural cause)

So which one of these 3 alternatives do you pick? Or perhaps there is a fourth option that I haven't thought about.
You know, the thing that's always left out of this discussion is the very idea of a the "singularity" from which -- we presume -- our present universe sprang into being with the "big bang."

Think about it: an enormous amount of mass (less say almost galaxy-sized) shrinks under gravitation, and because there's so very much mass, that its density and gravitational field are assumed to become infinite. In this situation, particles cannot exist (quantum mechanics doesn't permit a particle to be smaller than it's wavelength), and nor does time.

But does this mean that everything that was that galaxy has suddenly disappeared? Or is it, perhaps, just in another state that we (in our state) are unequipped to describe as yet?

What I'm trying to get at is that while the Big Bang seems to be the start of our universe, that does not necessarily mean that THE universe (not just ours) actually had a beginning -- and that ours is just one particular manifestation of an eternal state of being.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
I’m bored while my fiancé is house shopping so here you go. Everything wrong I can find with WLC’s kalam cosmological argument.

Begging the question and special pleading to avoid an infinite regress. The kalam argument seems to have been worded specifically to address the refutation of the cosmological argument, as it made the qualification that only things that begin have causes.

In Dan Barker's article Cosmilogical Kalamity, he writes

The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question.

In other words, the set of items that do not begin to exist must be pluralized - otherwise it is just another word for God.

The wording of Kalam is arguably a form of special pleading on the part of the theist. As Richard Dawkins put it, the cosmological argument makes "the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress." Whether we qualify the first premise to exclude non-beginning things (as the kalam argument does) or not (as the cosmological does), the essential question is why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole? Why does God not begin? It appears to be a wholly arbitrary choice.

Not all events need causes. The argument asserts that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". However, this is arguably a false statement and a hasty generalization. It is possible that some events, particularly on the quantum scale (such as in the early universe), do not have causes (or at least we do not fully understand the cause at this time). Videos on Kalam question the validity of using everyday concepts like "everything that begins to exist has a cause" in extreme situations such as the beginning of the universe. Hume argues the only way to know if principles (like causality) hold in very different conditions is to have direct experience of this.

Fallacy of composition. In the first premise, Craig declares "everything that begins requires a cause," and goes on to place the universe at the same logical level as its contents.

In an article titled Cosmological Kalamity, Dan Barker writes:

The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.

Describing the way physical objects within the universe behave relies on induction and physical laws, neither of which apply in the absence of a spacetime universe. Everything we are familiar with is an object within a set (the universe). It is a fallacy of composition to assert that the properties of things we are familiar with (objects within the set) are also properties of the set as a whole (the universe). Example: "Each part of an airplane has the property of being unable to fly. Therefore the airplane has the property of being unable to fly." The conclusion doesn't follow because the only way to determine whether the airplane has the property of being able to fly or not would be to get outside the plane (set) and then make observations. Unfortunately we are stuck inside the universe, so any conclusions we can draw about individual components of the universe (within the set) do not necessarily apply to the set as a whole.

See Russell’s Paradox for issues that arise from allowing a set to be a member of itself.



Equivocation of “beginning to exist” Kalam also equivocates on the first premise when it refers to everything that "begins to exist". Presumably this premise is referring to everything around us on this planet--everything in your house, everything on the streets, everything we see in the cosmos. However all of these things did not "begin to exist" in the same sense theists are claiming the universe "began to exist" (creation ex nihilo). According to the laws of thermodynamics, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and everything we are familiar with is a actually reconfiguration of preexisting matter than has been around for billions of years. The atoms that comprise people, places, and planets do not "come into existence" in the same sense Kalam is claiming the universe came into existence (matter appearing from a previous state of non-being/non-existence). Rather they have always existed in some form, and the objects we see around us are merely the latest rearrangements of those atoms. So in speaking of the universe requiring a "cause" for it's existence, Kalam is not referring to it as you would an automobile, which is being "caused" by a group of laborers rearranging physical matter into the form of a car, or mountains being "caused" by the shifting of tectonic plates (also made of atoms which have been around since the big bang), but of something being caused by creation ex nihilo, which is not at all the type of creation we are familiar with in every other circumstance. Kalam therefore is using a word game to equivocate between the behavior of matter and the origin of matter. This is an equivocation between wildly different things.

In summary: Kalam proponents believe God made the universe exist ex nihilo. But everything around us only "begins to exist" in a trivial sense, as rearrangements of preexisting, uncreated stuff. Since the universe is literally the only example of something truly "beginning to exist" from a previous state of nothingness, this means there is a sample set of one in this category, leaving no inductive support for the premise that "whatever begins to exist (ex nihilo) has a cause".

Once the argument is reformulated to take into account the hidden premises, it looks like this:

  1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.)
  2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
In other words:

  1. Every X has a cause.
  2. The universe Y.
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause.


As you can see, once the equivocation is made plain, the argument is invalid.

Further equivocation

There is a further type of equivocation on the phrase "begins to exist". Premise 1 refers to things that begin to exist within time. In other words, there was a time when a thing did not exist, followed by a time when it existed. This is not the case with the universe, since time is part of the universe. The universe is a finite age (13.8 billion years), and because time did not come into existence until after the inflation began, there is literally NO TIME at which the universe did not exist. It has existed at every point in time. Rephrasing the argument to accurately include this information, we get something like this:

Let X = "a thing which began to exist a finite time ago after a point when it did not exist"

Let Y = "a thing which has existed for a finite time, but which exists at every point in time"

  1. Everything that is X has a cause for it's existence.
  2. The Universe is Y.
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause for it's existence.
Once again, equivocation is at play. Premise 1 and 2 are comparing apples and oranges. The universe has existed at every moment in time and did not begin to exist in the same way that every object in P1 began to exist, so the argument is invalid.

Special pleading that the universe is not necessarily existent. If God not having a beginning is not a problem for Craig and other defenders of this argument, why is it a problem for the natural universe? To answer this, we must look at a further problem. This problem concerns the definition of God used in Kalam and the cosmological argument. A theologian might reply to this counterargument and insist that the decision is not arbitrary, and that God must be allowed to have these attributes that the Kalam argument seems to imply. He may say that the argument is an attempt to show the need for there to be a God that has the attributes that we cannot find in the universe. He might say that because we know that everything in the universe needs a cause and that the idea of infinite time is nonsense, there must be this being with these unique attributes. That is, there must be this being that does not begin, has no creator, and is thus able to create the universe. But this is just a bald assertion. The lack of human imagination when it comes to solving mysteries at the boundaries of current knowledge is not a good reason to invoke a hypothetical entity with mysterious powers that enable it to be immune from paradoxes.

A-Priori arguments cannot establish matters of fact.
Overall, this argument is an example of a proof by logic, where philosophers attempt to "demonstrate" god with a logical syllogism alone, devoid of any confirming evidence. This is arguably inappropriate for establishing matters of fact.

Is god distinct from the universe?
Let S1 = a state of affairs in which the Universe did not exist, and S2 = a state of affairs in which the Universe did exist.

The theist is trying to claim that the Universe began to exist, that is, there was a state in which there was God, "and then" there was a state in which there was the Universe. In other words, they want to say S1 "and then" S2. In order to do that, they must show that S1 and S2 are distinct. The possibilities are:

  1. The Universe never began to exist
  2. The Universe never existed
  3. S1 and S2 follow each other in time
  4. Some agent in S1 is the atemporal cause of S2
If we can eliminate all four examples, then there is no way to distinguish between the two states. If that is the case, then there is no "beginning" - no state at which the Universe began to exist, thus undermining the conclusion.

If we try to prove by contradiction that the Universe never began to exist, the contradiction becomes evident. By assuming the Universe began to exist, it rules out (1). The Universe exists, so that rules out (2). (3) is disproven by the fact that time is a property of the Universe, and therefore can't be applied outside of the Universe. (4) can't be true because Craig defines "atemporal causation" as follows:

To borrow an illustration from Kant, a heavy ball’s resting on a cushion is the cause of a depression in the cushion, even if the ball has been resting on the cushion from eternity past.

However, this cannot be used to distinguish between S1 and S2 because it requires cause and effect to be simultaneous. S1 and S2 cannot be simultaneous, as the Universe would exist at the same instant that it doesn't exist - a contradiction. By assuming that the Universe began to exist, we have ruled out all explanations for how it could have begun to exist. Thus, we cannot distinguish at the moment between S1 and S2 - undermining their conclusion.

Unparsimonious explanation the 747 gambit.
The God hypothesis is not only unnecessary, it is not parsimonius. In order to explain something apparently designed and which cannot create itself, a being is conjured into existence which would require even more unlikely explanation.
 
Last edited:

infrabenji

Active Member
Why only one cause?
In the construction of a house, there may be twenty people involved. There may be a large amount and wide variety of materials. There must be an appropriate location, and a diverse set of conditions that allowed the entire process to take place. Yet, the first premise would have us believe that all of this comprises just one "cause." This fails even on the most basic intuitive level, and even when it involves an object with which we are intimately familiar. Discussing something as foreign to our intuitions as the beginning of time would seem to compound the problem further.

However, even if we grant that each "thing" in the universe has exactly one cause, and that postulating an uncaused cause is sufficient to explain the origin of all things, it still would not follow that there could be only one uncaused cause. There could be several such influences working in concert, as polytheists would have us believe. There could be millions of uncaused causes that began separately but whose creations have since intermingled to form the universe we have now. In short, it isn't clear why anyone should suggest "a cause" rather than an unknown number of them - unless, of course, one's goal is to support an ideology that claims a singular creator for other reasons.

Natural processes are not ruled out. Even if you accept Kalam, it does not distinguish between a timeless multiverse, a timeless deity, or any other timeless process that might give rise to a universe. New Apologetics suggested a hypothetical "Quantum Minds Theory" in which many non-beneficent, non-omniscient, non-temporal minds exist and the universe begins when one mind shifts to break the logjam/equilibrium of competing ideas in the mind collection.

"On QMT, the physical world is not a design of God, but is the ontological by-product of an imbalance in the network of opposition between a vast multitude of non-spatiotemporal minds."

They argue this hypothesis is a better fit with the observed universe than traditional theism.

Unsupported premises relating to an actual infinite.
It is asserted that "An actual infinite cannot exist." However, this claim is not justified and it is possible that an actual infinite might possibly exist.

Block theory if time is compatible with an actual infinite series of events. One view of time is that the past, present and future always exist. Therefore there is no restriction on how much future or past there might be; it might even be an actual infinite.

Problem of evil. Based on the premises of Kalam, evil may or may not have a cause (depending on if evil had a beginning). Either the source of evil is divine, or God could not or would not destroy evil.

So what? Cosmological arguments have a weak conclusion that does not entail God exists. Although some other variation of the Kalam argument or Cosmological argument may be internally consistent even if all the terms given are agreed upon by all parties concerned, the argument actually makes no effort to demonstrate anything tangible in nature regarding the manifestation of a God. An example analogous to the Kalam argument would be a geometry proof on some type of polygon. Even though the entire table of proofs is totally internally consistent, it does not demonstrate that the actual polygon exists in nature. An exhaustive effort to prove all the angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees says nothing about whether or not triangles exist.
 
Last edited:

Magical Wand

Active Member
Why only one cause?
In the construction of a house, there may be twenty people involved. There may be a large amount and wide variety of materials. There must be an appropriate location, and a diverse set of conditions that allowed the entire process to take place. Yet, the first premise would have us believe that all of this comprises just one "cause." This fails even on the most basic intuitive level, and even when it involves an object with which we are intimately familiar. Discussing something as foreign to our intuitions as the beginning of time would seem to compound the problem further.

However, even if we grant that each "thing" in the universe has exactly one cause, and that postulating an uncaused cause is sufficient to explain the origin of all things, it still would not follow that there could be only one uncaused cause. There could be several such influences working in concert, as polytheists would have us believe. There could be millions of uncaused causes that began separately but whose creations have since intermingled to form the universe we have now. In short, it isn't clear why anyone should suggest "a cause" rather than an unknown number of them - unless, of course, one's goal is to support an ideology that claims a singular creator for other reasons.

Natural processes are not ruled out. Even if you accept Kalam, it does not distinguish between a timeless multiverse, a timeless deity, or any other timeless process that might give rise to a universe. New Apologetics suggested a hypothetical "Quantum Minds Theory" in which many non-beneficent, non-omniscient, non-temporal minds exist and the universe begins when one mind shifts to break the logjam/equilibrium of competing ideas in the mind collection.

"On QMT, the physical world is not a design of God, but is the ontological by-product of an imbalance in the network of opposition between a vast multitude of non-spatiotemporal minds."

They argue this hypothesis is a better fit with the observed universe than traditional theism.

Unsupported premises relating to an actual infinite.
It is asserted that "An actual infinite cannot exist." However, this claim is not justified and it is possible that an actual infinite might possibly exist.

Block theory if time is compatible with an actual infinite series of events. One view of time is that the past, present and future always exist. Therefore there is no restriction on how much future or past there might be; it might even be an actual infinite.

Problem of evil. Based on the premises of Kalam, evil may or may not have a cause (depending on if evil had a beginning). Either the source of evil is divine, or God could not or would not destroy evil.

So what? Cosmological arguments have a weak conclusion that does not entail God exists. Although some other variation of the Kalam argument or Cosmological argument may be internally consistent even if all the terms given are agreed upon by all parties concerned, the argument actually makes no effort to demonstrate anything tangible in nature regarding the manifestation of a God. An example analogous to the Kalam argument would be a geometry proof on some type of polygon. Even though the entire table of proofs is totally internally consistent, it does not demonstrate that the actual polygon exists in nature. An exhaustive effort to prove all the angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees says nothing about whether or not triangles exist.

Wow, you took a good deal of time to write these lengthy responses. :)
 

Magical Wand

Active Member
Why only one cause?
In the construction of a house, there may be twenty people involved. There may be a large amount and wide variety of materials. There must be an appropriate location, and a diverse set of conditions that allowed the entire process to take place. Yet, the first premise would have us believe that all of this comprises just one "cause." This fails even on the most basic intuitive level, and even when it involves an object with which we are intimately familiar. Discussing something as foreign to our intuitions as the beginning of time would seem to compound the problem further.

However, even if we grant that each "thing" in the universe has exactly one cause, and that postulating an uncaused cause is sufficient to explain the origin of all things, it still would not follow that there could be only one uncaused cause. There could be several such influences working in concert, as polytheists would have us believe. There could be millions of uncaused causes that began separately but whose creations have since intermingled to form the universe we have now. In short, it isn't clear why anyone should suggest "a cause" rather than an unknown number of them - unless, of course, one's goal is to support an ideology that claims a singular creator for other reasons.

Natural processes are not ruled out. Even if you accept Kalam, it does not distinguish between a timeless multiverse, a timeless deity, or any other timeless process that might give rise to a universe. New Apologetics suggested a hypothetical "Quantum Minds Theory" in which many non-beneficent, non-omniscient, non-temporal minds exist and the universe begins when one mind shifts to break the logjam/equilibrium of competing ideas in the mind collection.
....
So what? Cosmological arguments have a weak conclusion that does not entail God exists. Although some other variation of the Kalam argument or Cosmological argument may be internally consistent even if all the terms given are agreed upon by all parties concerned, the argument actually makes no effort to demonstrate anything tangible in nature regarding the manifestation of a God. An example analogous to the Kalam argument would be a geometry proof on some type of polygon. Even though the entire table of proofs is totally internally consistent, it does not demonstrate that the actual polygon exists in nature. An exhaustive effort to prove all the angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees says nothing about whether or not triangles exist.

It should be noted, however, that Craig presents three arguments for the first cause being personal. And recently Joshua Rasmussen has presented an additional argument.

Also, Craig would very simply reply one cause is simpler than many causes (per Occam's Razor), so this is prima facie reason to reject the many-gods-hypothesis.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
It should be noted, however, that Craig presents three arguments for the first cause being personal. And recently Joshua Rasmussen has presented an additional argument.

Also, Craig would very simply reply one cause is simpler than many causes (per Occam's Razor), so this is prima facie reason to reject the many-gods-hypothesis.
Yeah I haven’t followed modern apologetics till about a week ago when I joined this forum so there’s got to be some new and/or improved arguments that have come to light since I was in the seminary. I studied a lot of Thomas Aquinas in college so I’m familiar with his 5 arguments. WLC what was it back in 2009 came out with Kalam so I’ve run into it a couple times since and have some ideas about its veracity. I have to be honest though as you can see from the quotations all over my posts I’m borrowing heavily from authors and scientists to form what looks like my argument but it’s really just a compilation of arguments made by smarter people than I. Thankfully I understand the material. Just barely lol.
 

Magical Wand

Active Member
Yeah I haven’t followed modern apologetics till about a week ago when I joined this forum so there’s got to be some new and/or improved arguments that have come to light since I was in the seminary. I studied a lot of Thomas Aquinas in college so I’m familiar with his 5 arguments. WLC what was it back in 2009 came out with Kalam so I’ve run into it a couple times since and have some ideas about its veracity. I have to be honest though as you can see from the quotations all over my posts I’m borrowing heavily from authors and scientists to form what looks like my argument but it’s really just a compilation of arguments made by smarter people than I. Thankfully I understand the material. Just barely lol.

Well, Craig has presented these arguments for decades now. It is just that only some scholars paid attention to them.

Yeah, that's fine. I also borrowed most counter-arguments from philosophers and scientists. I only invented some refutations. :)

However, I honestly don't think Dan Barker is the best source of counter-arguments to the Kalam. He is a great debater, but he is not a philosopher and is not specialized in science. I would recommend reading Wes Morriston, Daniel Linford, Felipe Leon. These guys are very sharp. There's also a channel on YT called "skydivephil" where many cosmologists were interviewed and some arguments Craig presents were mentioned to those cosmologists so that they could refute Craig's abject apologetical objections. Anyway, I've also written some rigorous "articles" on my website about the the Kalam, so if you want to read them, just tell me.
 
Last edited:

infrabenji

Active Member
Well, Craig has presented these arguments for decades now. It is just that only some scholars paid attention to them.

Yeah, that's fine. I also borrowed most counter-arguments from philosophers and scientists. I only invented some refutations. :)

However, I honestly don't think Dan Barker is the best source of counter-arguments to the Kalam. He is a great debater, but he is not a philosopher and is not specialized in science. I would recommend reading Wes Morriston, Daniel Linford, Felipe Leon. These guys are very sharp. There's also a channel in YT called "skydivephil" where many cosmologists were interviewed and some arguments Craig presents were mentioned to those cosmologists so that they could refute the abject apologetical arguments. Anyway, I've also written a couple rigorous "articles" on my website about the the Kalam, so if you want to read them, just tell me.
Heck yeah send them my way! That’s really fascinating, thanks for the recommendations. Will due my diligence and read up on these guys. Thanks a lot.
 

Magical Wand

Active Member
Heck yeah send them my way! That’s really fascinating, thanks for the recommendations. Will due my diligence and read up on these guys. Thanks a lot.

Nice. :) So, here's my post touching on general points:
A Critical Examination of the Kalam Cosmological Fallacy

It's a long 'article', but I think it can equip you to deal with any average apologist who defends the Kalam fallacy.


And here I only talked about cosmology. It is my magnum opus. Lol
Does Modern Cosmology Prove the Universe Had a Beginning?

Anyway, I hope you like it. :) :)
 

infrabenji

Active Member

joelr

Well-Known Member
That is a strawman.

The reason why we invoke “God” is because the laws of nature (and logic) strongly suggest that the universe had a begging and a cause.

Once you accept that the universe has a cause………..God follows deductible.


Not even a little. First invoking a fiction as the cause is pointless. But we have an entire universe that goes through changes and things are created all over. Planets, stars, black holes, super clusters, elements. These are all things that happen because of the laws of nature. So the concept that the universe itself could also have started from natural laws has validity. Creating a entity that right now is fiction as the cause and saying it's deductibile is flat out wrong.

Black holes have a cause. Mainly gravity. The universe started out as a quantum state and we already have a model where probabilities can create a quantum sized universe which would expand. It doesn't answer all questions. For one we need to explain where the additional spacetime came from (spacetime has the potential to create a universe given enough time, since the ratio of negative energy to energy cancels out it's probable that this could happen.) But throwing a fictional concept at the problem which raises endless questions about why a complex, conscious being is there creating universes? Total fiction.
Everything in the universe has a cause - nature. A fictional being has created nothing ever that can be demonstrated. SO this is not evidence of any God.
It's just a flawed way religious people attempt to get a creator into the equation. It doesn't work. We don't know what started the big bang.

Since no Gods have ever been demonstrated you never have a way to say it's logical to say God did it.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Not even a little. First invoking a fiction as the cause is pointless.
That is a very strong assertion, can you prove that God is “fiction”



But we have an entire universe that goes through changes and things are created all over. Planets, stars, black holes, super clusters, elements. These are all things that happen because of the laws of nature.

Which provides evidence for premise 1 “things begin to exist because they have a cause”

So the concept that the universe itself could also have started from natural laws has validity.


Ok so you accept the conclusion of the KCA argument………….the universe had a cause. (Namely the laws of nature)




Everything in the universe has a cause - nature. A fictional being has created nothing ever that can be demonstrated. SO this is not evidence of any God.

God follows deductively from the argument, but before moving on lets make a pause:

1 we both agree that probably the universe (or multiverse) had a cause (space time and matter had a cause)

2 you claim that the laws of nature is a better explanation than God

3 I claim that God is a better explanation than the laws of nature+

Do we agree on these 3 points. If yes we can move on…if no please tell me where do you disagree.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
First acknowledges that the poster's scientific knowledge is vastly superior to his own.
Then proceeds to debate based on declarations about thermodynamics.


Priceless.

I also find it hilarious that you didn't actually respond or acknowledge any of his 6 points and instead jumped on something else he didn't even mention.

Absolutely priceless.
It is his way.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
That is a very strong assertion, can you prove that God is “fiction”

It took you zero time to attempt unfalsifiability? You should know better than this because you have called people out for the same problem?
We cannot prove Zeus is fiction, or The One Above All from Marvel Comics who is the ultimate creator God. Maybe they started this universe as well. However since there is no evidence they exist it is logical to put them as fiction. The broad category of "gods" has never been demonstrated either. So it isn't a "strong" assertation to take a fictional being and call it fiction. Find some evidence first.
Just because a popular myth claims a God sent messages to people, and the messages were similar to the laws they and everyone else had at the time, that isn't evidence. Especially considering when societies formed in this time period they immediately invented a God who was their personal God and the best God ever and attributed all their wisdom and philosophy to this God. That was a normal way to begin a society. Now thousands of years later if you haven't figured out this stuff was made up by people then you're a bit behind but you don't get to throw around bronze age folklore like it's an option for scientific gaps.




Which provides evidence for premise 1 “things begin to exist because they have a cause”




Ok so you accept the conclusion of the KCA argument………….the universe had a cause. (Namely the laws of nature)

So I said I don't know. A possibility based on induction is that natural laws started the big bang because natural laws have done everything we see in this universe.
The universe did start out in a quantum size and state. So that lends probability that some spacetime was present before the big bang because spacetime and quantum mechanics/probabilities are related.




God follows deductively from the argument, but before moving on lets make a pause:

1 we both agree that probably the universe (or multiverse) had a cause (space time and matter had a cause)

2 you claim that the laws of nature is a better explanation than God

3 I claim that God is a better explanation than the laws of nature+

Do we agree on these 3 points. If yes we can move on…if no please tell me where do you disagree.
First I do not know if the universe had a cause, I do not know if any time existed before the local spacetime emerged so the process may be something we cannot understand.
I do not "claim" the laws of nature are better than a God. That is a fact. God is an unproven, never been demonstrated, requires complexity and there is zero evidence that a God could exist never mind exist prior to the big bang? God is not an explanation. It's a ad-hoc assumption by religious people to make them feel like there is a place for God. But it doesn't have any logic. Like most apologetics when you actually think about it it's a total fail.
The original people who supposedly had communications with a God you believe in, Yahweh had information that God lived in the last heaven. There were circles of divine realms inside the solar system. The angels lived in the 2nd to last and God lived in the last.
This turned out to be fiction. Later theologians had to make God beyond what telescopes were showing was Godless space and Aquinas and others came up with all sorts of nonsense, some based on Greek thinking about a tri-omni God, beyond space. It's all made up baloney by thinkers from the Middle Ages.
Scripture Yahweh is often floating around humans, sending Satan to do his dirty work and absent in all other cultures. So it's complete nonsense all around. This is not a candidate for a scientific model.
Not even a little.

You might as well just go to physics forums and tell students that the strange expansion of the universe, Dark Energy, is really just God pushing at the universe. And any mystery in any science just say God is doing it. The plasma phenomenon in Switzerland over the mountains, God making weird plasma. That's how ridiculous this is.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
It
We cannot prove Zeus is fiction, or The One Above All from Marvel Comics who is the ultimate creator God. Maybe they started this universe as well. However since there is no evidence they exist it is logical to put them as fiction.

But you are dealing with an argument that attempts to provide evidence for God (the KCA argument) if you what to affirm that there is no evidence for God then first you have to deal with the argument and disprove it.


In summery This is what is happening:
1 you claim there is no evidence for god

2 I present evidence for God (KCA)

3 you ignore the evidence and repeat "there is no evidence for God"







Find some evidence first.

Done, deal with the evidence that has been presented, please explain where the flaws in the KCA argument are.


So that lends probability that some spacetime was present before the big bang because spacetime and quantum mechanics/probabilities are related.
The claim is that space time itself had a begining (as premise 2 in the KCA claims) and evidence has been presented.

So do you agree with this claim ? If no please explain what is wrong with the evidence please spot the specific mistakes





First I do not know if the universe had a cause,
.
Ok but an argument has been provided to support the claim, please deal with the argument


God is not an explanation. It's a ad-hoc assumption by religious people to make them feel like there is a place for God
.

God follows as a consequence of logical deduction

If you grant that the universe had a cause it follows that the cause has to be spaceless timeless immaterial powerful and personal which is what everybody means by God... ......if you disagree you can try to spot mistakes in the logic and explain why you think are mistakes.

* Zeus and Marvel Gods (if the excist) are not inmaterial
*the laws of nature (assuming that they excists) are not personal

This is why none of these possibilities are candidates for the cause of the universe (assuming that you grant the deductive argument)…. If you don’t grant the argument feel free to spot the flaws.



----

So in summery an argument for the existence of god has been provided (The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith) so you shouldn’t be repeating like a parrot “there is no evidence” “there is no evidence” until you deal with the argument and refute it.



It took you zero time to attempt unfalsifiability?

The KCA is falsifiable, you can ether refute premise 1 or refute premise 2 or show that the conclusion doesn’t follow, or show that the cause doesn’t have to be “God” by showing that God doesnt necesairly follows from stablishing a cause.
 
Top