Debate question

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- kutta
- Pub Regular
- offline
Debate question
OP - April 20, 2013, 10:18 PM

Hello guys. Hamza has claimed that his argument, which is basically the kalam cosmological argument, is a deductive one. However, his first premise is that everything that has began to exist must have a cause.

Obviously, the only way he could make that premise is because everything he has observed had a cause, and then deems it to be logically impossible for something to not have a cause. However, since it is also logically impossible to observe everything, doesn't that mean that the premise is based on induction?

Do you think that my point has weight?
- TheDashingRabbit
- Politics and Literature Junkie
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Debate question
Reply #1 - April 20, 2013, 11:12 PM

man not the Kalam argument again.... Ok the Kalam argument is the most childish argument anyone has ever made.

Here is what I tell people when they bring up the Kalam. Im gonna quote my other posts cuz I'm too lazy to type it out again.

Quote from: TheDarkRebel on March 11, 2013, 01:12 AM

The problem with the kalam I have is that it uses every day intuitions to describe the beginning of the universe.

I mean physicists use complex mathematical equations to describe phenomenon in the universe and often time even those go very strongly against our intuition.

Case in point: Quantum Mechanics. It is complex as fuck that noone can get an intuitive grasp of it.

If scientists are struggling to figure out the beginnings of the universe even while using mathematics what makes people think they can just jump into that debate with their simple intutions such as " everything that begins to exists has a cause.. etc"

I mean it's just so ridiculous....

Quote from: TheDarkRebel on March 22, 2013, 05:53 PM

This is exactly what I keep telling people when they bring up the kalam.

You have to use the methods of theoretical physics if you want to seriously talk about the universe.

Saying that the kalam is a valid argument is like a person who knows nothing about biology going into a lab and telling the scientists how to do their experiment.

It is completely ludicrous.

In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
- dr_sloth
- Pub Regular
- Orthodox Atheist
- offline
Debate question
Reply #2 - April 20, 2013, 11:22 PM

Basically, everything Hamza says is wrong. He understands nothing at all.

His whole characterisation of the distinction between deduction and induction is completely idiotic to begin with. His skim reading of 'philosophy of science for dummies' has led him to conclude that deduction is necessarily superior to induction. I cannot even express in words how dumb I think he is.

Do not be suprised to find that Hamza Tzortzis has said something stupid.
Please wake me up when he says something which is not stupid. Thanks

kutta: Krauss made the same point in the debate, so you are in good company.

http://postimg.org/image/5hwu5oz17/full/
- Rob
- Member
- offline
Debate question
Reply #3 - April 20, 2013, 11:24 PM

Is this "big bang" related? The question of what was there before the big bang, and what caused it, has been answered by Physicists lots of times and your own criticism is valid as far as I can tell.

I'm more interested in exploring this from a different angle. Since we don't know what started it all off (and probably will never know), I am prepared to accept that it may have been instigated by a deity. If we accept this premise as an interesting starting point, where does it lead? I don't see how it leads to the god of the Abrahamic religions. As far as I know, there is nothing at all in their doctrines that makes this scenario fit with their beliefs. If the universe was created by a god in this this way all their assertions about what god wants are, surely, invalidated. Isn't he espousing a blasphemy if he's trying to make a point like this?
- deusvult
- O......O
- Pub Regular
- offline
Debate question
Reply #4 - April 21, 2013, 01:29 AM

Quote from: kutta on April 20, 2013, 10:18 PM
Hello guys. Hamza has claimed that his argument, which is basically the kalam cosmological argument, is a deductive one. However, his first premise is that everything that has began to exist must have a cause.

Obviously, the only way he could make that premise is because everything he has observed had a cause, and then deems it to be logically impossible for something to not have a cause. However, since it is also logically impossible to observe everything, doesn't that mean that the premise is based on induction?

Do you think that my point has weight?

Most deductive arguments l have inductive parts contained in them, induction sneaks in where the requirement that each part needs to be valid and sound. The very fact that you have to observe the outside world to understand that everything has a cause means it's actually an inductive conclusion, used as a premise for a deductive argument

If deductive arguments were always superior to inductive arguments then you would end up with conclusions which are clearly wrong.

All swans are white
Y is a swan
Y is white

is a deductive argument, but it isn't a sound argument because not all swans are white. Induction and deduction work together, just like empiricism and rationalism. Neither is clearly better than the other it's usually a combination.

So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
My political philosophy below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
Just kidding, here are some true heros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
- kutta
- Pub Regular
- offline
Debate question
Reply #5 - April 21, 2013, 08:53 AM

Quote from: Rob on April 20, 2013, 11:24 PM
Is this "big bang" related? The question of what was there before the big bang, and what caused it, has been answered by Physicists lots of times and your own criticism is valid as far as I can tell.

I'm more interested in exploring this from a different angle. Since we don't know what started it all off (and probably will never know), I am prepared to accept that it may have been instigated by a deity. If we accept this premise as an interesting starting point, where does it lead? I don't see how it leads to the god of the Abrahamic religions. As far as I know, there is nothing at all in their doctrines that makes this scenario fit with their beliefs. If the universe was created by a god in this this way all their assertions about what god wants are, surely, invalidated. Isn't he espousing a blasphemy if he's trying to make a point like this?

Also, who's to say that it has to be one diety? Why can't it be multiple dieties all harmonizing together in order to create stuff? To be frank, there's not much more evidence for two gods to exist any more than one. Good point
- Rob
- Member
- offline
Debate question
Reply #6 - April 21, 2013, 09:35 AM

Or even, and with just as much evidence. Not created by gods at all.

Has this been done?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html

This worries me a bit since, if they realise we know what we are, they may turn us off. Perhaps we shouldn't talk about it too much.
1« Previous thread | Next thread »