The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- Skeptic
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
OP - August 01, 2011, 08:25 PM

I think most of you know what i am talking about it widly advertised by William Lane craig and fuhter copied by the likes of hamza andreas torties and adam deen.

For thoese who don't know what the kalam is it basicly goes something like this.

1- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2- The universe began to exist.
3- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4- This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.

as put forward forward by william lane craig.

I want people Philsphcial and/or scientific opinion on it

I am sort of gonna play the devils advocate.

Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. [carl sagan]
- zooby
- Ex-Muslim
- Snoozin'
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #1 - August 01, 2011, 08:36 PM

Well the conclusion doesn't follow from the 3rd premise.

Join us on chat. Click here.
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #2 - August 01, 2011, 08:46 PM

This goes all the way back to Hume, according to Hume, the concept of cause does not arise through reason, but through force of habit. what Hume identified was that basic principles like causality cannot be derived from sense experience only. According to Kant, only practical reason, the faculty of moral consciousness, the moral law of which we are immediately aware, enables us to know things as they are, essentially from pure ideas no direct advance can be made to objective existence.

Here is a book worth reading if you want to get an understanding on the subject:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kant-Causation-HB-Principle-Philosophy/dp/0791459012

Anyway, assuming every effect does need a cause, then the same rule applies to god also, who created god?

Finally, even if a “First Cause” is probable, this doesn’t mean we have proven that God exists. A mere “First Cause” that has apparently done nothing more than cause the Big Bang hardly seems to warrant the label “God.”

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- asbie
- Actually just a dude
- Poster of the Month
- Past, present, future...
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #3 - August 01, 2011, 09:06 PM

Quote from: zooby on August 01, 2011, 08:36 PM
Well the conclusion doesn't follow from the 3rd premise.

Yeah, pretty much this. The argument is dishonest as all hell. Either that or it was constructed by someone extremely small-minded.

Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
how fuck works without shit??

Let's Play Chess!

harakaat, friend, RIP
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #4 - August 01, 2011, 09:13 PM

See the link to the book I posted.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Stuff
- Member
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #5 - August 01, 2011, 09:19 PM

1- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

It would appear so, so long as we are talking about things in our universe beginning to exist.
Everything we observe coming into existence results from causal relationship between existing energy/matter.

2- The universe began to exist.

Yes, but in a fundamentally different way than we are familiar with. Thus I don't think it sensible to compare creation ex nihilo to spatiotemporal beginnings.

3- Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Nah. And even if it did, its a long way off from proving any sort of sentient willing creator.

4- This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.

No no no, the cause is actually a fluctuation of eternal and oblivious quantum soup.

PS: extremely long thread on philosophyforums, deals with kalam argument thoroughly:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/a-response-to-the-kalamcosmological-arguments-38724.html

Have you heard the good news? There is no God!
- Muzammil
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #6 - August 01, 2011, 09:25 PM

This video answers all the questions raised in the argument in detail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE
- crazyislam
- Rubber Dinghy Rapids, bro.
- Member
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #7 - August 02, 2011, 03:51 AM

1- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Sounds more like weasel wording, but lets assume this is true, despite being an argument from ignorance.

Quote
2- The universe began to exist.

Not necessarily. A cyclic model could resolve this, where there is eternal cyclic big bang and big crunch.

Quote
3- Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Again, false because 2 is not necessarily true.

Quote
4- This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.

Non sequitur.

Youtube
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #8 - August 02, 2011, 04:53 AM

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. God began to exist.
3. Therefore, God has a cause.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- asbie
- Actually just a dude
- Poster of the Month
- Past, present, future...
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #9 - August 02, 2011, 05:53 AM

How can you talk for almost half an hour in rebutting this obviously nonsensical argument, you ask? This dude manages to do it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGlgYExLOo&feature=channel_video_title

Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
how fuck works without shit??

Let's Play Chess!

harakaat, friend, RIP
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #10 - August 02, 2011, 06:33 AM

^ That's part of an ongoing 'debate' with W. L. Craig.

TBS has the upper hand, and Craig is resorting to strawmen and broad-brush atheist bashing instead of admitting his glaring errors.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- Kenan
- Cultist
- Pub Regular
- Hwee cap-toored eet fohr kay-ohss !!!
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #11 - August 02, 2011, 09:45 AM

Quote from: Skeptic on August 01, 2011, 08:25 PM
1- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Why is that necessarily true? You made an assertion, can you prove it?

Quote from: Skeptic on August 01, 2011, 08:25 PM
2- The universe began to exist.

Again, you stated the above as if it is a fact. Why is that so? Is there data to prove beyond any doubt that (I suppose you are talking about 'our' universe) this universe began to exist at some point in time?

Quote from: Skeptic on August 01, 2011, 08:25 PM
3- Therefore, the universe has a cause.

3 follows from 1 and 2. Problem is that 1 and 2 are assertions you yet have to prove.

Quote from: Skeptic on August 01, 2011, 08:25 PM
4- This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.

OP is obviously a homosexual and a communist.

If everything that began to exist has a cause then who created god?
If god's existence doesn't need a cause then assertion that everything that began to exist needs a cause is false. But because the previous assertion must be true it logically follows that god doesn't exist.

Btw 'everybody' knows that "the creative power of the universe is not a personal being; it is Buddha. The one who sees, and the one who hears, is not this eye or ear, but the one who is this consciousness. This One is Buddha. This One appears in every mind - This One is common to all sentient beings."

Personally I lean towards the explanation (backed by solid scientific evidence as presented in the Gospel) that universe was created by a non-personal being called FSM that did not chose to create the universe. It was a simple, honest mistake. You see FSM was out partying, he got drunk and stoned (the exact details of what happened are a bit hazy) but when he woke up in the following afternoon (with a massive hangover) the universe was just there.

Obviously we shouldn't discard the possibility that everything was created by a celestial non-detectable non-personal non-sentient teapot either.
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #12 - August 02, 2011, 11:54 AM

1- Whatever doesn't begin to exist, doesn't exist.
2- Game over
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #13 - August 02, 2011, 12:04 PM

Let's assume these are correct:

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist

So, it follows that:
3) The universe has AT LEAST one cause

But...
How does that imply there is an uncaused cause? Infinite regression is still possible.
And even if we magically ruled out an infinite chain of causes, how does it imply there is ONLY ONE uncaused cause?

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #14 - August 02, 2011, 12:06 PM

Other than that, I see a huge problem in 1) and 2) anyway.

The whole issue stems from the definition of "X begins existing".

So, try and make them first define how we can tell if something begins existing or not, and from there you can trash those 2 assumptions in various ways, depending on the definition they give you.

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #15 - August 02, 2011, 12:08 PM

For example, you can try and take into account time itself.
Did time begin existing, or not?
Or, causality. Did causality begin existing or not?

Then you can try and factor those into the definition of universe.
Is time part of the universe? If not, why not?

Etcetera, etcetera...

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
- kleine Bruder
- Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #16 - August 02, 2011, 03:15 PM

Great thread and discussion! I too have a problem with 1 and 2 and Kenan gives a very well reasoned argument as to why they're faulty.
- serrated_colon
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #17 - August 02, 2011, 04:00 PM

plus the argument is only deductive if one assumes causality to be a priori, if it isn't, then the argument is relying on an inductive justification of 1 and 2 and thus it cannot be deduced that this cause is an objective fact of reality.
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #18 - August 02, 2011, 04:03 PM

1. Things that begin to exist:
Pasta
Curtains
Frogs
Carpets
Bicycles
Tricycles
Unicycles
Trees

2. Things that do not begin to exist
unicorns
tooth fairies
fairies in general
magical pasta
Tricycles with two wheels
loch ness monster

and theists are perfectly happy to put god in list 2?
There are plenty of things that do not begin to exist. The problem is that they dont continue to exist either. In fact they simply don't exist.
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #19 - August 02, 2011, 04:43 PM

Darkmatter2525 just did a video about this...

Why Kalam fails

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ--CbV7L-g&feature=feedu

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #20 - August 02, 2011, 08:32 PM

Quote from: serrated_colon on August 02, 2011, 04:00 PM
plus the argument is only deductive if one assumes causality to be a priori, if it isn't, then the argument is relying on an inductive justification of 1 and 2 and thus it cannot be deduced that this cause is an objective fact of reality.

Yeah alot of it is based on a priori, which as I pointed out fails in this case since it is based on an assumption. You can't have empirical evidence of an event which is prior to existence, i.e. knowledge of Ex nihilo since there was no space-time prior to the event in this case. It essentially comes down to faith to accept the premise or not, since it is not based on empirical evidence, it is unfalsifiable.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Al-Ma`arri
- I Worship Nietzsches Moustache
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #21 - August 02, 2011, 10:55 PM

How do you answer when some theists use causa sui as an argument? Elaborate on that good folks!

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

- John Keats
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The kalam cosmological argument (calling in Jay and muzzamil)
Reply #22 - August 03, 2011, 08:26 PM

Well if god was self-caused then he had point where he was not caused thus, he was not eternal, i.e. without beginning or end, thus violating one of the key components used in the definition of the concept of God.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
1« Previous thread | Next thread »