The Kalam Argument

Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #60 - November 19, 2011, 11:53 AM

Quote from: sturmgewehr on November 19, 2011, 11:03 AM
I keep hearing this God of Gaps, can you elaborate me what it means more precisely.

God of the Gaps argument is essentially a logical fallacy, for example if there is a gap in scientific knowledge, therefore God is used to fill in the gap, or if there is unexplained phenomenon it is explain by saying God did it. I recently made a post on this on a debate I was having:

Quote
Having an open-mind does not mean one has to accept any bible-babble. Also having an 'open-mind' about non-scientific concepts does not make you automatically open-minded, in fact it can often lead you to be incredibly close-minded. It is actually you who have no curiosity, that you dismiss all other alternatives and ascribe a God belief to some scientific anomaly. This as a matter of fact is a logically fallacy called the God Of the Gaps argument, which basically states that if there is a gap in scientific knowledge then therefore, God is the best answer to fill that gap. That makes one to be less-open-minded, since your position is not based on doubt/skepticism it is not scientific, since science is based on skepticism, belief on the other hand is not, it is based on faith.

When you automatically label an unexplained event supernatural when there is no evidence which is obvious to you, you will misinterpret evidence, make invalid causal connections, eliminate alternative explanations prematurely - and that IS the definition of closed-mindedness.

Moreover, saying that a lack of explanation is evidence of supernatural powers is a contradiction in itself. It essentially amounts to saying: "I can't explain something", therefore: "I can explain it" the unexplained is just simply the unexplained.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/8897428/Secret-of-ghost-alps-of-Antarctica-revealed.html#comment-367437518

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #61 - November 19, 2011, 11:58 AM

Quote from: Jesus Christ on November 16, 2011, 05:37 AM
Science is applied philosophy, just as engineering is applied science.

Philosophy -> Science -> Engineering

Absract Concepts -> Research and Knowledge -> Real life building and applications

Philosophy are the original embers of our mind's ascent from apehood. To put down philosophy as if it's opposed to science shows a lack of understanding of either.

This post is endorsed by King Tut. Anyone who disagrees with the above; is a fucking idiot and should terminate him/her self.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- posthuman
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #62 - November 19, 2011, 12:28 PM

We don't know what the sun is - it was made by God to give us day and night and heat.

We know what stars are - they were made by God to give us calendars and to find North.

The sun is in fact a star, well, God made all stars.

Fusion may make stars, but God made the hydrogen and helium.

God did the Big Bang.
---------------

God of the gaps (in knowledge).

Before Jesus was, I AM.
- posthuman
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #63 - November 19, 2011, 12:30 PM

Quote from: King Tut on November 19, 2011, 11:58 AM
This post is endorsed by King Tut. Anyone who disagrees with the above; is a fucking idiot and should terminate him/her self.

WRONG

You can do science WITHOUT engaging in philosophy, you cannot do engineering without the sciences.

Before Jesus was, I AM.
- posthuman
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #64 - November 19, 2011, 12:35 PM

All science is, is just organized curiosity. Religion is organized superstition. Philosophy is "why are we organizing shit?"

Before Jesus was, I AM.
- TheRationalizer
- Pub Regular
- Gone - due to unfair moderation
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #65 - November 20, 2011, 10:40 AM

Quote from: sturmgewehr on November 19, 2011, 11:03 AM
I keep hearing this God of Gaps, can you elaborate me what it means more precisely.

Example:
We don't know how X can be naturally possible, therefore a supernatural entity MUST be responsible.

Gap in knowledge: What makes stars move?
Conclusion: God moves them

Gap in knowledge: What makes the Earth quake?
Conclusion: God must shake it

Gap in knowledge: How did life start?
Conclusion: God must have started it

God is used as the explanation for the gaps in our knowledge and is thus known as "god of the gaps." As we turn over more and more stones on the beach of discovery we find that god has fewer and fewer stones under which to hide. A once massive god that hid under every stone on a huge beach is slowly being relegated to a small rock pool.

I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #66 - November 20, 2011, 10:43 AM

in other words, god is patrick star.
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #67 - November 20, 2011, 11:30 AM

Quote from: sturmgewehr on November 18, 2011, 12:15 PM
So you are implying that there was no nothing before the universe got initiated or came into existence ?

I didn't write the above stuff, I saw that guy had made this argument and i considered it smart since if there was nothing before, like Nothing in the sense of no space, no time no matter and if there was nothing of this how did it come to be and we know that if u say one of this came to be first then that one is dependent of the rest of those factors and can't exist alone.

Matter can't exist without space, space can't exist without matter and time.

There is no such thing as "before time".
For the definition of before.

Before x = a period of time that's chronologically precedent to x

And, there is no period of time that's chronologically precedent to the whole time itself.

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
- sturmgewehr
- Illyro-Thracian
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #68 - November 20, 2011, 11:33 AM

King Tut and TheRationalizer thank you very much I appreciate it

Quote from: Tlaloc on November 20, 2011, 11:30 AM
There is no such thing as "before time".
For the definition of before.

Before x = a period of time that's chronologically precedent to x

And, there is no period of time that's chronologically precedent to the whole time itself.

yeah I was kind of thinking the same, I was debating with a guy in an Anthropology topic on the same subject and we were arguing about existence and so on and someone said before existence or non existence and I think the other guy said non existence is impossible and kind of explained it with the DOES NON EXISTENCE EXISTS ? and no matter how u answer it u can see non existence is impossible.
- Tlaloc
- Aperture Science Test Subject
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #69 - November 20, 2011, 11:38 AM

Quote from: TheRationalizer on October 05, 2011, 11:34 AM
>4. There cannot be an infinite regression of natural causes to get here, so something must have decided to create the universe

An infinite number of events can have passed if we have an infinite amount of time before now. However this just changes the argument from an infinite number of events to an infinite amount of time so answers nothing.

There is an imprecision in this statement.

Infinite or unbound/limitless?

It's perfectly possible for an infinite number of events to happen in a limited amount of time.
Imagine this:

x0 happened at time 1 s
its cause, x1, happened at time 0.5 s
its cause, x2, happened at time 0.25 s
its cause, x3, happened at time 0.125 s
and so on.

There you would have an infinite amount of causes in a "bound/limited" (yet infinite, cause non-discrete) ~~amount~~ set of time

Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #70 - November 20, 2011, 09:50 PM

Quote from: sturmgewehr on November 20, 2011, 11:33 AM
King Tut and TheRationalizer thank you very much I appreciate it

yeah I was kind of thinking the same, I was debating with a guy in an Anthropology topic on the same subject and we were arguing about existence and so on and someone said before existence or non existence and I think the other guy said non existence is impossible and kind of explained it with the DOES NON EXISTENCE EXISTS ? and no matter how u answer it u can see non existence is impossible.

It's a fallacious question.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- sturmgewehr
- Illyro-Thracian
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #71 - November 21, 2011, 12:09 AM

@ King Tut: why is it a fallacious question ?? can u explain it ?
- posthuman
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #72 - November 21, 2011, 12:17 AM

If the answer is impossible to have then it's a fallacious question.

If one says "non-existance is x"

x = something that exists

A paradox. Like asking what was there before time.

Before time = time that exists preceding the existance of time.

Before Jesus was, I AM.
- sturmgewehr
- Illyro-Thracian
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #73 - November 21, 2011, 12:39 AM

^^

Doesn't that kind of show that Non Existance and no time are impossible ??
- posthuman
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #74 - November 21, 2011, 01:38 AM

Kind of yeah.

Before Jesus was, I AM.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #75 - November 21, 2011, 04:21 AM

Quote from: z10 on October 03, 2011, 07:54 PM
The scientific enterprise is engaged in providing algorithmic hypotheses to try and incrementally improve models of thought that purport to causally explain observable phenomena. Science cannot and should not attempt to answer ontological questions.
If the universe has a cause outside of itself then it is, by its very definition, beyond the scientific enterprise.

Hold it right there.

Science is not limited to this universe. We already have theoretical descriptions on a multitude of possible universes. the only criteria for something to come under the remit of science are that it be, at least in principle, testable and falsifiable. So, this may or may not be able to include a cause outside the universe itself. Insufficient data.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #76 - November 21, 2011, 04:31 AM

Quote from: z10 on October 04, 2011, 07:58 PM
However, there are good rational reasons for why science cannot answer the question of the origin.

1. Science is the study of all phenomena.

Is it? Would the cosmos coming into existence be a phenomenon or not? I'd call such a thing quite phenomenal. If this is the case, you just included it under science.

Note that I'm not arguing this is actually the case, just suggesting you might want to take another look at your definition.

Quote
2. The origin of the cosmos is the origin of all phenomena.

Proof?

Quote
3. To answer the question of the origin then we need to be beyond phenomena to know. This is because using phenomena to try to explain the origin of phenomena is a futile loop, if a cause exists then it cannot be itself.

That seems to be more semantic trick than anything. Problems as I see them are:

1/ Any first cause is a phenomenon of sorts. If it is an uncaused first cause, then it effectively is itself. It's certainly not anything else.

2/ You seem to be using "phenomena" as a catch all and then saying anything in that category cannot explain anything else in that category. That may not be what you meant to say, but is how it reads. Obviously, some things in that category can explain other things in that category.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #77 - November 21, 2011, 04:41 AM

Quote from: TheRationalizer on October 05, 2011, 11:34 AM
Okay, for the first time ever here are my objections to the KCA. It doesn't look like I am going to use them against Hamza, so I may as well post them

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. There cannot be an infinite regression of natural causes to get here, so something must have decided to create the universe
5. Therefore the creator of the universe must be a conscious entity which is itself uncaused and exists in an eternal realm.
6. Occam's razor says there should only be one god, because you don't need two.

1/ Cannot be proven conclusively. Sure, it seems like the truth according to our every day notions of cause and effect, but I doubt it is possible to construct an ironclad logical proof of it. Without such a proof, the whole thing falls apart at the first stage.

2/ Unproven, at least at this stage.

3/ See 1.

4/ Unproven, and quite likely unprovable. The idea of infinite regression makes us uncomfortable, but anyone who is going to rely on infinite regression being impossible must first demonstrate that this actually is the case.

5/ Pulled straight out of someone's arse, with no substantiation.

6/ Occam's Razor merely says that entities should not be needlessly multiplied. In this case, we do not actually know how many would be needed.

Also, Occam's Razor is just a caution about making stuff up in the absence of evidence. It does not actually prohibit anything.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #78 - November 21, 2011, 05:59 AM

Quote from: osmanthus on November 21, 2011, 04:21 AM
Hold it right there.

Science is not limited to this universe. We already have theoretical descriptions on a multitude of possible universes. the only criteria for something to come under the remit of science are that it be, at least in principle, testable and falsifiable. So, this may or may not be able to include a cause outside the universe itself. Insufficient data.

By universe, I mean absolutely everything that composes this reality of ours. If it is an infinite number of universes all the way up, then so be it. The question of the origin of reality is about all of reality, not just our visible universe of course.

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #79 - November 21, 2011, 07:09 AM

K. Well universe has a specific meaning already, so better to use another term.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #80 - November 21, 2011, 07:12 AM

Quote from: z10 on November 21, 2011, 05:59 AM
By universe, I mean absolutely everything that composes this reality of ours. If it is an infinite number of universes all the way up, then so be it. The question of the origin of reality is about all of reality, not just our visible universe of course.

i really don't get what this means. if the universe encompasses everything, then what else is there for something not-science to discover?
- crazyislam
- Rubber Dinghy Rapids, bro.
- Member
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #81 - November 21, 2011, 11:27 AM

Whatever begins to exist has a cause? Even if that's the case, whatever begins to exist has a MATERIAL cause, this applies to only ex materia creation. How could one use the proposition to defend ex nihilo creation?

Youtube
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #82 - November 21, 2011, 11:30 AM

Quote from: sturmgewehr on November 21, 2011, 12:09 AM
@ King Tut: why is it a fallacious question ?? can u explain it ?

It has no application. This is going back to Occam's Razor, which in short states that entities should not be multiplied beyond logical parsimony. Since they have no application unless they reflect something more fundamental. Bertrand Russell argued: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."

To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

P.S, Osmanthus is right in correcting the Rationalizer though.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- posthuman
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #83 - November 21, 2011, 01:02 PM

I don't have the answers.

Before Jesus was, I AM.
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #84 - November 21, 2011, 02:22 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on November 21, 2011, 07:09 AM
K. Well universe has a specific meaning already, so better to use another term.

I apologise. I thought that this was clear though. The Kalam argument is all about how all of creation was caused, ie everything that exists, not just our pocket of it.

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- z10
- Pub Regular
- Imago Dei
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #85 - November 21, 2011, 02:27 PM

Quote from: Abood on November 21, 2011, 07:12 AM
i really don't get what this means. if the universe encompasses everything, then what else is there for something not-science to discover?

Well I don't know if there is anything apart from this everything. The Kalam argument asserts that there is something metaphysical that caused all of physical reality to exist. All I have been saying is that if this is the case, then science won't be able to tell us about this cause because, quite literally, this cause is transcendent of every parameter that we can use to measure and/ or record it. This is not to say that I think there is a cause for certain, just a hypothetical based on the Kalam argument.
In other words, the Kalam is most likely wrong, but, it is not unscientific.

At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
- posthuman
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #86 - November 21, 2011, 02:30 PM

Universe does mean 'all that exists'.

So far, all that we know to exist is the universe.

Which is why multiverse means 'all that exists more than once'.

If we discover other universes, then I think we'll give ours and them a different name, like 'bubble' or 'cell' or 'fart' or some funky sciency name like "quantum variable field expansion module"

Before Jesus was, I AM.
- TheRationalizer
- Pub Regular
- Gone - due to unfair moderation
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #87 - November 21, 2011, 03:20 PM

When saying "Universe" in context of the Kalam it means "everything that exists" simply because

1: We have not yet observed evidence of the existence outside of our visible universe.
2: The Kalam essentially states that if we pose a multiverse we are simply deferring our explanation back a single level to "Who" created the multiverse?

I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #88 - November 21, 2011, 07:52 PM

Quote from: King Tut on November 21, 2011, 11:30 AM
P.S, Osmanthus is right in correcting the Rationalizer though.

I wasn't correcting him. I was just using the list of premises he posted to give my ideas on them. Same thing he was doing.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- TheRationalizer
- Pub Regular
- Gone - due to unfair moderation
- offline
Re: The Kalam Argument
Reply #89 - November 21, 2011, 07:52 PM

Indeed, those certainly were not MY argument

I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »