The Kalam cosmological argument

Author: OntologicalSpider ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 42
  • OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    I thought I'd discuss the Kalam a bit.. As this seems to be one of the most discussed arguments for the existence of God.

    1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

    2. The universe began to exist.

    3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause.

    Why do you agree or disagree with this argument?

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    #1 and #2 are unproven.
    #3 includes an attribute (the transcendent nature of the cause) that is not derived from the premises.

  • OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    --> @drafterman
    My plan was to unpack number three as the discussion went on a bit. I do think transcendent is the only logical conclusion when we see what it means to be a cause of the universe.

    Why do you feel 1 and two are unproven? What do you mean by prove to be exact? Would that require 100 percent epistemic certainty?


    Honestly, I think there are good reasons to believe one and two

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    My plan was to unpack number three as the discussion went on a bit. I do think transcendent is the only logical conclusion when we see what it means to be a cause of the universe.
    But that has to be demonstrated or at least stated as an axiom.

    Why do you feel 1 and two are unproven?
    For 1, because there are events which appear to be spontaneous (arise without a cause) such as radioactive decay.
    For 2, because there is no indication that the universe has a begining.

    What do you mean by prove to be exact?
    That it's the conclusion of a sound logical argument.

    Would that require 100 percent epistemic certainty?
    No.

    Honestly, I think there are good reasons to believe one and two
    For example?
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,289
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    good argument

    There can never be an infinite amount of events in the past

    It has to start somewhere
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    There can never be an infinite amount of events in the past
    Why not?

    It has to start somewhere
    Why?


  • OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    --> @drafterman
    Ok so, I agree with your definition of prove. I think we can work from there. In regards to the beginning two premises:


    My understand of spontaneous radioactive decay is that it means nothing external caused the isotope to decay, that doesn't mean there's not an internal cause or explanation. But even if that wasn't the case, I still don't see this as being relevant to the first premise. The first premise, although it has confirmation from inference, is a metaphysical truth.

    And that is being cannot come from non being. Nothing cannot create or actualize something because nothing has no properties and no causal relation to any thing. It's non being.

    The decay of isotopes doesn't really negate this principle. So really, this principle is definitionally true. Non being by definition of what it is, has no ability to bring anything into being. No scientific truth or discovery could negate that.

    So it seems to me the first premise is definitionally true.


    In regards to the second premise, as Dr Franklin alluded to, there are both philosophical and scientific reasons why the universe began to exist.

    Firstly, the scientific evidence is there in the Borde, Vilenkin, Guth theorem. The big bang, the fact the universe is expanding, and perhaps most strongly the second law of thermodynamics.

    Philosophically, to say the universe is past eternal would mean an actual infinite can and has been instantiated. We argue that's just not possible.


  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    Ok so, I agree with your definition of prove. I think we can work from there. In regards to the beginning two premises:

    My understand of spontaneous radioactive decay is that it means nothing external caused the isotope to decay, that doesn't mean there's not an internal cause or explanation.
    There is no known cause of spontaneous radioactive decay, which is why we can only speak of it in terms of half life.

    But even if that wasn't the case, I still don't see this as being relevant to the first premise. The first premise, although it has confirmation from inference, is a metaphysical truth.

    And that is being cannot come from non being. Nothing cannot create or actualize something because nothing has no properties and no causal relation to any thing. It's non being.
    But this presupposes the "something" in question was created or actualized. It is not demonstrated that everything that begins to exist did so because it was created or actualized.

    The decay of isotopes doesn't really negate this principle. So really, this principle is definitionally true. Non being by definition of what it is, has no ability to bring anything into being. No scientific truth or discovery could negate that.

    So it seems to me the first premise is definitionally true.
    Ok, so you submit it as an axiom. I reject the axiom.

    In regards to the second premise, as Dr Franklin alluded to, there are both philosophical and scientific reasons why the universe began to exist.

    Firstly, the scientific evidence is there in the Borde, Vilenkin, Guth theorem.
    Which is a mathematical theorem based on relativity and may be invalidated by quantum mechanics.

    The big bang, the fact the universe is expanding, and perhaps most strongly the second law of thermodynamics.
    The main issue unaddressed is the fact that the known laws of physics break down when describing the early universe. They can't prove that the universe had a beginning or was created.

    Philosophically, to say the universe is past eternal would mean an actual infinite can and has been instantiated. We argue that's just not possible.
    Ok, then argue it.
  • OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    --> @drafterman
    So I would just like to make a few points regarding some things you've said.


    If it is both simultaneously true that radioactive isotopes decay without a cause, and we cannot apply the law of physics to the early universe, then there is no reason to apply the facts about radioactive isotopes as being relevant to this discussion in regards to causality and the early universe. Whatever models we have of physics or causality, or lack thereof will not be relevant based on this reasoning, because they, according to you, break down. This sword cuts both ways...


    Secondly, you  say that it has not been demonstrated that everything that exists has been actualized by a prior cause... Unless you can empirically provide an example of being coming from non being, or something being actualized from nothing, this is really just an argument from ignorance. What you're in essence arguing in this:

    We have not seen every single example of a triangle, therefore the claim triangles have three sides is unproven.

    Well that would be fallacious. We don't need to experience every single triangle before we can state they have three sides. It's definitionally true. Whether we accept the axiom or not.

    As I argued earlier, the causal principle is confirmed by inference, but it's definitionally true based upon what we are dealing with. Non being cannot bring about being... It's non being.

    In regards to premise two, did the universe have a beginning, you seem to have cast doubt on the BGV theorem...I am not a cosmologist so I will grant you this. What we still have though is the second law of thermodynamics.


    In short, the universe is rapidly approaching a state of complete entropy. If the universe were eternal, we would have been in that entropy by now. Another way of looking at it, the usable energy in the universe is running out. If the universe were eternal, we would have run out by now.

    Now, moving on to the possibility of an actual infinite:


    There are several different ways this can be fleshed out, but to be succinct, there are two types of infinity. A potential infinity and an actual infinity. An actual infinity  is never instantiated. There are several reasons:

    1. It would lead to absurd and impossible consequences.

    Suppose I had a library with an actually infinite number of red and blue books. Now suppose I subtracted all the blue book (an infinite amount) from all the red books (an infinite amount). How many books are left? An infinite amount still.

    So in this instance infinity - infinity = infinity.

    But now let's say, I subtracted every book greater than 3

    How many books do I left? 3.

    So in this instance infinity - infinity = 3.

    This leads to a logical contradiction

    And because logical contradictions cannot be instantiated in reality, it follows an actually infinite series of things, cannot be instantiated. But it gets worse. Suppose for a minute we imagine the universe as past eternal. That would mean that everyday prior to today went on into infinity. If we look at the reverse of this, in order to get to today, there would be an infinite number of past events to traverse.

    And that simply isn't possible. There would always be one more event to cross and complete before we could arrive at the present. Which means we would never arrive at the present. But we are in the present. So the number of past events leading up to today was finite. We couldn't traverse an infinite.

    I know this post was lengty.  but I tried my best to explain why I think premise one and two stand. Thoughts?
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 2,566
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    Kalam: This so that so there.

    1. What is God and what was it's cause?

    2. So we assume that everything including God begins.

    3. We assume that the universe and more appropriately matter began to exist.

    4. Therefore we assume that the universe and more appropriately matter has a cause.

    5. And the notion of transcendency is what it is. A fanciful higher brow word intended to define something that is only notional.

    6. And arguments such as Kalam attempt to give validity to notional assumptions. Which in terms of knowledge leaves us still firmly stuck at the beginning of something without a clue.

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    If it is both simultaneously true that radioactive isotopes decay without a cause, and we cannot apply the law of physics to the early universe, then there is no reason to apply the facts about radioactive isotopes as being relevant to this discussion in regards to causality and the early universe. Whatever models we have of physics or causality, or lack thereof will not be relevant based on this reasoning, because they, according to you, break down. This sword cuts both ways...
    I don't see what one has to do with the other.

    Secondly, you  say that it has not been demonstrated that everything that exists has been actualized by a prior cause... Unless you can empirically provide an example of being coming from non being, or something being actualized from nothing, this is really just an argument from ignorance. What you're in essence arguing in this:

    We have not seen every single example of a triangle, therefore the claim triangles have three sides is unproven.
    That is not what an argument from ignorance is. An argument from ignorance would be to claim that something doesn't exist because we have yet to observe it. I'm not claiming that. It's ironic, because cosmological arguments such as these are essentially arguments from ignorance:

    "We've never seen something come from nothing, ergo something can't come from nothing."

    That is basically text book argument-from-ignorance format.

    Well that would be fallacious. We don't need to experience every single triangle before we can state they have three sides. It's definitionally true. Whether we accept the axiom or not.

    As I argued earlier, the causal principle is confirmed by inference, but it's definitionally true based upon what we are dealing with. Non being cannot bring about being... It's non being.
    For the sake of argument, I'll concede the point on premise 1.


    In regards to premise two, did the universe have a beginning, you seem to have cast doubt on the BGV theorem...I am not a cosmologist so I will grant you this. What we still have though is the second law of thermodynamics.

    In short, the universe is rapidly approaching a state of complete entropy. If the universe were eternal, we would have been in that entropy by now. Another way of looking at it, the usable energy in the universe is running out. If the universe were eternal, we would have run out by now.
    It is rapidly approaching a state of complete entropy relative to the Big Bang. I will agree that there cannot have been an infinite time since the Big Bang, otherwise the things you said would be true. But we cannot say anything about the state of the universe at or prior to this point in time. None of the known laws of physics are known to hold. What that means is we cannot use those laws of physics to make claims about the universe beyond that point.

    Now, moving on to the possibility of an actual infinite:

    There are several different ways this can be fleshed out, but to be succinct, there are two types of infinity. A potential infinity and an actual infinity. An actual infinity  is never instantiated. There are several reasons:

    1. It would lead to absurd and impossible consequences.

    Suppose I had a library with an actually infinite number of red and blue books. Now suppose I subtracted all the blue book (an infinite amount) from all the red books (an infinite amount). How many books are left? An infinite amount still.

    So in this instance infinity - infinity = infinity.

    But now let's say, I subtracted every book greater than 3

    How many books do I left? 3.

    So in this instance infinity - infinity = 3.

    This leads to a logical contradiction
    Except that is not a logical contradiction. Firstly, subtraction is not a valid mathematical operation you can perform on infinite quantities. Your statement might as well be:

    "Blue - daffodil = car"

    It is a nonsensical statement that has no truth value.

    As stated, the manipulation of infinite values that you describe are perfectly fine and acceptable within mathematics, which is a branch of logic. If what you said was a logical contradiction, then that would basically toss out all of set theory, which is a corner stone of mathematics. Yes, dealing with infinite quantities results in some counter-intuitive results, but they are all mathematically (and, hence, logically) viable.

    These types of thought experiments fall into the category of the Hilbert's Hotel Paradox. But it is only a "paradox" in the sense that the result is counter-intuitive, not that it is a logical contradiction. 

    And because logical contradictions cannot be instantiated in reality, it follows an actually infinite series of things, cannot be instantiated. But it gets worse. Suppose for a minute we imagine the universe as past eternal. That would mean that everyday prior to today went on into infinity. If we look at the reverse of this, in order to get to today, there would be an infinite number of past events to traverse.

    And that simply isn't possible. There would always be one more event to cross and complete before we could arrive at the present. Which means we would never arrive at the present. But we are in the present. So the number of past events leading up to today was finite. We couldn't traverse an infinite.
    This entire line of logic only makes sense if you presume some starting point from which you "leave" to "arrive" at the present, but it doesn't make sense to talk about the starting point of an infinite series. There is no requirement to "traverse" an infinite.

    Furthermore, there is nothing logically special about the direction of time. Anything you say about the past would apply to the future, meaning to suggest the past is finite would be to suggest the future is finite as well. If infinity can't be instantiated in reality then that includes an infinite future, meaning there must be an end to all existence, including God.

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,300
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

    I do not see how questioning this axiom is reasonable, because it is the evident truth that everything that begins to exist came into being through causal forces. 


    2. The universe began to exist.

    Merriam-Webster defines the universe as "The whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"

    That being the case, the universe's existence is contingent on consciousness. Contingent on observation and postulation. 


    3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause.
    The Ultimate Reality is bigger than the universe, so to speak. Within God is contained The Universe, and it is from God that everything that exists derives being.




    Why do you agree or disagree with this argument?
    I think someone with theological understanding can make good use of arguments like this, but I tend to shy away from logical arguments lest people think that God was discovered through logic rather than revelation. As there is no reasonable doubt concerning the existence of God, I find that proving God is not nearly as important as identifying God.

    The Ultimate Reality is God. God is The Truth.

    There is no reasonable doubt concerning the existence of God.




  • OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    --> @drafterman
    Ok, I'm going to work in reverse a bit here. Starting with the infinite discussion.


    You first said that subtraction is not a valid operation you can perform on infinite quantities. That's exactly my point. That's the whole issue. If a mathematical quantity could be instantiated in the actual world, not just in abstracts, and we couldn't perform a most basic and fundamental operation on it, that becomes a problem very quickly. This is confirmation of my point.

    You stated that mathematicians would have to throw out all of set theory if what I said was logically contradictory. Well for starters, what I said is logically contradictory, it's mathematically provable. But more importantly, you have to remember I said there are two types of infinites.

    A potential infinite (represented in math by the lemniscate)

    An actual infinite (represented by the aleph null

    Set theory and things like transfinite arithmetic deal with potential infinites all the time, and there is no logical contradiction or any problem in doing this because they're abstract ideas. Even the aleph null and any operation done on that would be abstract.

    The question is can an infinite be exemplified outside of the world of abstracts. When we try to conceive of that, when we try to put them in the space time world, we get logical contradictions as my above operation showed.



    You stated my contention with an infinite past only works if I presume some starting point. There is no starting point, and that is exactly the problem. Think of it this way

    If we are at zero right now, that means we traversed ALL the negative numbers. Now let zero be the present. And all the negative numbers be past events. If we're at zero we traversed all past events. If they're infinite that's not possible.


    You stated that whatever applies to the past must apply to the future, and if there couldn't be an actual infinity there couldn't be an infinite future. But again, the future is only potentially infinite. One more event can always be added, it's not that we have to traverse one more event that had already been added. And since God by definition is outside of time, whatever applies to time does not necessarily apply to Him.

    In regards to your argument from ignorance analogy, I never stated that we have never seen anything come from nothing, therefore it's not possible, so I'm just going to leave that one off to the side.

    It seems to me you seem a little biased against the big bang and relativity. I think this might be the heart of the issue.

    So I will ask what model do you personally prefer?
  • OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    --> @Mopac
    "There is no reasonable doubt concerning the existence of God"

    I would agree!
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    You first said that subtraction is not a valid operation you can perform on infinite quantities. That's exactly my point. That's the whole issue. If a mathematical quantity could be instantiated in the actual world, not just in abstracts, and we couldn't perform a most basic and fundamental operation on it, that becomes a problem very quickly. This is confirmation of my point.
    There is no rule that says for some idea to be instantiated in the actual world you need to be able to perform specific mathematical operations on then. Division is a basic mathematical function and there are plenty of things you can't perform division on in the real world.

    You stated that mathematicians would have to throw out all of set theory if what I said was logically contradictory. Well for starters, what I said is logically contradictory, it's mathematically provable. But more importantly, you have to remember I said there are two types of infinites.

    A potential infinite (represented in math by the lemniscate)

    An actual infinite (represented by the aleph null

    Set theory and things like transfinite arithmetic deal with potential infinites all the time, and there is no logical contradiction or any problem in doing this because they're abstract ideas. Even the aleph null and any operation done on that would be abstract.

    The question is can an infinite be exemplified outside of the world of abstracts. When we try to conceive of that, when we try to put them in the space time world, we get logical contradictions as my above operation showed.
    You're confusing language here.

    1. While math does deal with different kinds of infinites, it does not distinguish between "potential" and "actual" infinities in the sense of what can and cannot exist in the real world.
    2. Aleph null - what you call an actual infinity - is what set theory deals with.
    3. If something can exist in a mathematical framework but not a physical one, then it is a physical impossibility/contradiction, not a logical one.
    4. As I explained, you did not demonstrate a logical contradiction. Your "proof" wasn't valid because it did not use valid mathematical operations. It no more demonstrates a contradiction then all of the "proofs" that say 1 = 0 that sneakily insert invalid operations such as dividing by zero.

    You stated my contention with an infinite past only works if I presume some starting point. There is no starting point, and that is exactly the problem. Think of it this way

    If we are at zero right now, that means we traversed ALL the negative numbers. Now let zero be the present. And all the negative numbers be past events.
    If we're at zero we traversed all past events. If they're infinite that's not possible.
    Except the idea that we can't traverse infinities is not true. We traverse them all the time (re: Zeno's Paradoxes).

    You stated that whatever applies to the past must apply to the future, and if there couldn't be an actual infinity there couldn't be an infinite future. But again, the future is only potentially infinite. One more event can always be added, it's not that we have to traverse one more event that had already been added.
    The future is as real as the past.

    And since God by definition is outside of time, whatever applies to time does not necessarily apply to Him.
    I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about the universe.

    In regards to your argument from ignorance analogy, I never stated that we have never seen anything come from nothing, therefore it's not possible, so I'm just going to leave that one off to the side.

    It seems to me you seem a little biased against the big bang and relativity. I think this might be the heart of the issue.

    So I will ask what model do you personally prefer?
    Wut? I'm not biased against them. I simply note the fact that relativity breaks down when describing the Big Bang. This is like a big, known issue in science.

    Our scientific models cannot describe the universe past a certain point, so we can't say anything about the universe beyond that point, including making statements like: "it had a beginning."
  • OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    --> @drafterman
    You said there's no rule that says because you cant do certain operations on something doesn't mean it can't be instantiated, the point is not we can't do operations on it, it's that when we try to do operations on infinity the answers are undefined or contradictory.  That's not the case with things that are actually instantiated. Two hundred tomatoes minus one hundred tomatoes always equals a hundred tomatoes.



     You said the answer isn't logically contradictory, just physically contradictory. What's the difference? How can a contradiction be instantiated no matter what we call it?


    It's interesting you bring up Zeno's paradox. Aristotle actually takes my side here in answering that:


    For motion…, although what is continuous contains an infinite number of halves, they are not actual but potential halves. (Physics 263a25-27). …Therefore to the question whether it is possible to pass through an infinite number of units either of time or of distance we must reply that in a sense it is and in a sense it is not. If the units are actual, it is not possible: if they are potential, it is possible. (Physics 263b2-5).
     

    Hmm, that line of reasoning sounds familiar....

    You keep saying we can't say anything about the universe beyond a certain point.... What point exactly are you referring too? That the laws of physics break down may be entirely true, but we're dealing with math and metaphysics at this point, it's just frankly not relevant.


    PS. I'm posting from my phone so please pardon my brevity, it's too tedious to copy paste and block quote every point you're making, but I am enjoying this discussion.

  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,706
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    You said there's no rule that says because you cant do certain operations on something doesn't mean it can't be instantiated, the point is not we can't do operations on it, it's that when we try to do operations on infinity the answers are undefined or contradictory.  That's not the case with things that are actually instantiated. Two hundred tomatoes minus 100 hundred tomatoes always equals a hundred tomatoes.
    Reality isn't limited to the mathematical operations we can perform on tomatoes, though.

    You said the answer isn't logically contradictory, just physically contradictory. What's the difference? How can a contradiction be instantiated no matter what we call it?
    Something can be a logical possibility but a physical impossibility. I was simply noting the difference between those two concepts.

    It's interesting you bring up Zeno's paradox. Aristotle actually takes my side here in answering that:

    For motion…, although what is continuous contains an infinite number of halves, they are not actual but potential halves. (Physics 263a25-27). …Therefore to the question whether it is possible to pass through an infinite number of units either of time or of distance we must reply that in a sense it is and in a sense it is not. If the units are actual, it is not possible: if they are potential, it is possible. (Physics 263b2-5). 
    Hmm, that line of reasoning sounds familiar....
    Okay, so you picked a person who agrees with you. That doesn't exactly prove the point. Consider that the possibility of the universe being infinite in size isn't ruled out. If there was such an obvious, proven concept that infinities cannot exist in physical reality, then this possibility would have been ruled out long ago.

    You keep saying we can't say anything about the universe beyond a certain point.... What point exactly are you referring too?
    The Planck Epoch.

    That the laws of physics break down may be entirely true, but we're dealing with math and metaphysics at this point, it's just frankly not relevant.
    Then, frankly, I don't know why you brought them up, then. I asked why the universe has to have a beginning and you brought up scientific evidence. I'm simply refuting that. If it wasn't relevant, why bring it up in the first place?
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,211
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @zedvictor4
    1. What is God

    An eternal "field" of awareness akin to energy.

    and what was it's cause?

    God is postulated as eternal (as is energy), it's a non-sensical question, this field of awareness is a fixed reality (infinite), the "base/foundation" (prior state) of all that exists. If God is not eternal then there is no need to make the argument at all. The argument is specifically predicated for things that began to exist......AKA creation (universe).
    This is not "special pleading" of course, which I know is coming....it is the very attributes of God, call it convenient if you will but that is the nature of the Creator. It's really no different than accepting that energy is eternal, or not created. It's not special pleading to say energy is not created or destroyed, it is the very nature of energy and what is known or understood about it. Same thing.

    In Theism it is proposed that mind or awareness comes before matter, and using commonsense and logic it's a decent premise, because we observe intelligent processes occurring within the universe. To assume the opposite would be to blatantly accept that processes occur by themselves. So Theism does indeed have a strong basis and platform. 
    So basically we have a foundation that is uncaused (like energy), and a universe that is caused (matter/formation/evolution/processes). . 

    2. So we assume that everything including God begins.

    "Begins" is the problem with this statement. You included God but God is not included. This would only be relevant to what we observe in the natural/physical universe. "Everything that BEGINS to exist"....

    3. We assume that the universe and more appropriately matter began to exist.

    We don't have to assume it, we can observe it take place. If we can observe a planet forming for instance, we know it was once not there. If we can observe a stars death, or birth we know ect ect...The universe is a product of change and evolution, both of those attributes necessitate a beginning or a condition.

    4. Therefore we assume that the universe and more appropriately matter has a cause.

    True, based on what I said above, or we can deduce.

    5. And the notion of transcendency is what it is. A fanciful higher brow word intended to define something that is only notional.

    Not really, if God does indeed exist (which is what we're postulating) then the term has actual meaning and a legit premise. God is above and beyond the normal human experience and the average physical sense perceptions, God is much more like energy by nature which exists within form as well as independent of form and everything that exists, exists within God. You can discard it if you wish to assume God does not exist, but that's not intelligent. You have to actually follow the logic not discard the proposition because you find the idea fanciful. That's just an opinion.

    6. And arguments such as Kalam attempt to give validity to notional assumptions. Which in terms of knowledge leaves us still firmly stuck at the beginning of something without a clue.

    As far as I can tell, following the logic behind all premises it's simple but fairly secure.

  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 2,566
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @EtrnlVw
    If God does indeed exist.
    Exactly.

    Though as is regularly pointed out, any imaginary form can be postulated.

    Has Kalam ever achieved anything other than postulation?



21 days later

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,942
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    While it might change my understanding of what you are arguing if you were to rigorously define the terms everything, begins, exist and cause the first premise does seem awfully like a way of smuggling a special pleading fallacy later by claiming that despite your argument hinging on our never having observed a thing which exists which did not begin (an undemonstrated conclusion itself) that you nevertheless have special knowledge of some thing which exists which did not begin.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,094
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    There can never be an infinite amount of events in the past. There has to be a start somewhere.
    Why must there be a start? Just because we think we have been able to measure a Big Bang does not mean there was not a previous bang before that one. The one we measured was faint. That's the same logic as saying that if we cannot measure a minimum quantity of water vapor in a cloud there must not be an amount below which we cannot measure. Absurd.

    Moreover, even if we believe the God caused the Big Bang, was it the only bang He had happen? Also absurd. Why should we think there was only one? Thats accepting a definition of "eternity," yet limiting it to a point with an eternal line running away from it in one direction. Also absurd, again. Eternity is an unlimited line in both directions. If mathematics can imagine such a line, why cannot cosmology, astronomy, or religion, for that matter? More to the point, why not an infinite number of lines extending in all directions; effectively a sphere formed of lines?
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,094
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
    2. The universe began to exist.
    3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause. 
    1. What if nothing has a beginning, including...
    2. The universe, which may have always existed, therefore no beginning,
    3. Yet, the universe has a cause.

    All that means is expanding the available posits to include eternity, or infinity, which cannot be limited to a beginning.

    In a biblical sense, when Genesis says, "In the beginning..." the beginning is not speaking to the universe beyond, but the heaven and earth in a specific locale, which, themselves, were not non-existent, but merely "without form," that is, unorganized matter and energy. Creation, then, is not create out of nothing, but organization of matter and energy, for a purpose.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,094
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    The root language of God is mathematics. All actions and commandments of God are balanced formulae of, essentially, you do this, God will do that, and the two actions have equivalent value. There is a body of scripture I embrace which contains the following: "There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world upon which all blessings are predicated, and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." [D&C 130: 20-21] That is, in essence, a balanced equation.
    Newton used to refer to God as "The Geometer." 
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,289
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @fauxlaw
    An infinite regress is a series of appropriately related elements with a first member but no last member, where each element leads to or generates the next in some sense.[1] An infinite regress argument is an argument that makes appeal to an infinite regress. Usually such arguments take the form of objections to a theory, with the fact that the theory implies an infinite regress being taken to be objectionable.
    There are two ways in which a theory’s resulting in an infinite regress can form an objection to that theory. The regress might reveal a bad feature of the theory—a feature that is not the regress itself, that we have independent reason to think is a reason to reject the theory. Or the fact that the theory results in the infinite regress might itself be taken to be a reason to reject the theory. The former cases are the easier ones, since in those cases we do not have to make a judgment as to whether the regress itself is objectionable, we only need to ask about the feature of the theory that the regress reveals. We will look at cases like this first, before turning to cases where the regress itself might be seen as a reason to reject a theory.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 41
    Forum posts: 1,094
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    Infinite regress is a theory of explanation, but it entirely depends on the Kalam cosmology argument that the universe had a finite beginning because everything with a beginning has a cause, and, therefore, only by that finite beginning does the universe have purpose. Who says an eternity cannot have purpose and cause?

    I contend that the entire re-development of the Kalam cosmology was because William Craig, a Christian theologian, and apologist, some claim, apparently cannot conceive the prospect of eternity, which combats infinite regress [an oxymoron, in my book] because it can imagine a first member of an element, but not a last. Or, rather a last element, but not the first. It is regression, after all; let's be consistent, That sounds like an admission of eternity, but the theory stops only because it cannot see a first member, but apparently assumes there must be one, but is ignored. The are all kinds of graphic representations of such a form as an infinite regress. All of them reflect a fractal image which eventually stops because there simply is no space to account for further "members" in a reducing vortex. But that discounts the potential of eternity in that eternity does not recognize a reduction at all. It simply isn't a vortex shape. I think the universe has no shape, but a best image to conceive it is an expanding sphere that never began as a singular point. No beginning. A regression backward [but why would someone need to do that?] that maintains the same scope as the future: expanding. Just because we cannot conceive it graphically does not imply that it cannot be. 

    I don't have a reference for you to investigate further because this is my own thinking. But I abhor limited thinking, like ignoring an eternity simply because we cannot put it in a box, a vortex, or whatever other shape you want. Why do we need to present such a thing graphically, anyway? What's wrong with words. or better, mathematics, which can easily conceive an eternity just by ciphers, which can run in either direction, or any direction simultaneously, for infinity?