Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 10:33 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 12:18 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 11:40 AM

Gaza assault
January 26, 2025, 10:05 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
January 26, 2025, 08:55 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 20, 2025, 05:08 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 12:03 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 11:55 AM

News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM

Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM

What's happened to the fo...
December 25, 2024, 02:29 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Who kares about kalam?

 (Read 5692 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Who kares about kalam?
     OP - March 22, 2015, 06:17 PM

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument has always seemed so utterly unimpressive to me. To assert that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause" requires extrapolating our everyday experience of observing ex materia causation inside of a physical universe with the property of time, to be a metaphysical truth that can be applied to to the whole of our universe at an instance in which time and space do not exist. Whatever happened "before" the Big Bang (if "before" even makes sense in this context), would be something that will probably violate all of our intuitions on the nature of causation and how things work in general. However, even if one could jump through all these hoops and establish that the universe requires a first cause... who cares?

    I could think of a million ways the universe could have had an uncaused cause without invoking the traditional monotheistic God of the Abrahamic traditions. The universe could be a part of an eternal multiverse in which local universes arise spontaneously. Our universe could be a simulation run by aliens or an advanced form of a civilization like ours. Lord Brahma could be the ultimate source of everything, or a council of Greek-like gods could have pressed the inflate button on our universe. The later premises of the Kalam attempt to establish that this first cause is timeless, spaceless, and transcendent. Although to a theist, this may jump out to him or her as being a good description of God, one must realize that pretty much anything beyond our observable universe will probably have these properties. It's pretty much another way of saying the cause wasn't something that exists in our universe (which applies equally to the FSM as to Jehovah). Even if you conceded the entire Kalam, its pretty much just an admission that there is more to existence than just our space- time universe. Which leaves the theist with pretty much all his work ahead of him.

    And yet, if you look at the comments under a WLC vid, you will see theists saying "atheists resort to all sorts of ridiculous logic to deny the first cause because they are unwilling to stand judgment before (enter preferred god here)." 

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #1 - March 22, 2015, 06:29 PM

    Whilst your contribution is valid and isnightful, it'd be best served posted within other existing threads on the topic of the KCA.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #2 - March 22, 2015, 07:08 PM

    Women contributed on the other threads. I was just trying to observe hayya

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #3 - March 22, 2015, 07:37 PM

    Brilliant. I should've paid more attention. Perhaps CEMB males and CEMB 4 pemales version is needed. I'll put down £300,000 to get this going.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #4 - March 22, 2015, 07:40 PM

    Far more worthwhile than buying Christmas presents for orphans or something. Grin

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #5 - March 22, 2015, 08:56 PM

    If there was no "before" time and time is part of the universe there is no beginning. Began signifies there is a point in time in which something does not exist, t=1, and a time in which it does, t=2. As per the opening statement there is no t=-1 so the universe has always existed at t=0.
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #6 - March 22, 2015, 09:04 PM

    I think this is the point in which Craig will waffle on about atemporal causation

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #7 - March 22, 2015, 10:11 PM

    Yet such an atemporal caution is static thus incapable of doing or effecting anything, or even basic thought.

    There also far more issues with Kalam as it has hidden premises. Many never see these premises since they focus on the conclusion not what the premises actually imply. The argument is formatted to be accessible not detailed. This is due to language games in which complicated ideas are reduced to a common language structure used by those that are not educated in the technical language.
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #8 - March 23, 2015, 12:21 AM

    I think I came across something like kalam in my head when I was in middle school. I was trying to give myself some sort of intellectual justification to believe in God as I felt disconnected from everyone else at my church who seemed to have personal experiences with God while I never got the slightest thing when I prayed or worshiped in church. I learned in class that matter could not be created or destroyed, so I figured something must have originally created matter, violating this law. And I figured time must have had a beginning because if time went back infinitely, you could never reach this moment in time. Therefore God must exist to supernaturally create matter and start time. I felt pretty smart for figuring this out.

    Then I learned more about physics and philosophy and grew out of it. I suppose I could have held tightly onto it and kept revising it and making excuses for it as craig does.

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #9 - March 24, 2015, 12:58 AM

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument is to qualified Cosmologists what the stork baby argument is to qualified Biologists.
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #10 - March 24, 2015, 06:38 AM

    Its not even the stork story as only the religious even bring it up. Cosmologist only have to deal with it due to it's popularity with laymen. 
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #11 - March 24, 2015, 07:49 AM

    What's really struck me after looking into the argument more is that even if one were to concede that the universe needs a cause, that cause could literally be an infinite number of possibilities. All it would really establish is there could quite possibly be more to reality than the space-time universe we observe. I feel this point gets lost somewhere in between debating Einstein's theory of special relativity and the possibility of an actual infinite existing in the real world.

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #12 - March 24, 2015, 08:42 AM

    What is HAYYA!?
    JZK brother
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #13 - March 24, 2015, 07:46 PM

    A cause external to the universe for the universe opens the float gates. If what we see in nature is no longer applicable to the cause then all bets are off including the basic claim. In come metaphysics which is just the magical world of special pleading
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #14 - March 25, 2015, 02:42 AM

    Is metaphysics really all just wild speculation? I think a lot of philosophers would argue it is a legitimate field of philosophy

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #15 - March 25, 2015, 05:18 AM

    At times it is pure speculation. At best it is only a theoretical mathematical model. Once people start tossing out what we know for terms like timeless, causeless, eternal outside of time, etc, Philosophy is still limited by what we know, it can not proof something into existence.
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #16 - July 13, 2015, 05:48 PM

    General Relativity explains that causation cannot occur before time/ the big bang. Inflation explains that our big bang gave rise to a multiverse therefore time encompasses the multiverse. Our big bang occured because of the quantum vaccuum, quantum vaccuum is nothingness comprised of potential energy (in physics nothingness is still something; there was never a point where there was an abscence of something). The law of conservation of matter and energy explains that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

    Kalam cosmological argument debunked!
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #17 - July 13, 2015, 05:53 PM

    Also according to the kalam argument the universe cannot come from nothing, william asserts god created the universe based on nothing. Well then what did god create the universe from? nothing? if its nothing then we're back to square 1: something cant come from nothing; therefore god provides no explanation.
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #18 - July 13, 2015, 05:54 PM

    Quote from: Homo Novus
    .


    WLC would just respond with an argument from simultaneous causation and talk about asymmetric dependency relations. The better way to refute Kalam as many philosophers have noted (and Sean Caroll did this in his debate which I don't find too surprising given that Sean actively engages with philosophy) is to argue against the principle of sufficient reason. If one can successfully object to PSR then the KCA breaks down as a result. No amount of appeals to the nonexistence of actual infinities would be able to help Craig. Simple, yet effective.

    Kevin deLaplante did a good video on the status of causation within both philosophy and physics:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAgT_8KtICg&list=PLCD69C3C29B645CBC&index=6

    Here's another good video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8LuTdrCWVw

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #19 - July 13, 2015, 06:35 PM

    Quote
    william asserts god created the universe based on nothing.


    WLC maintains that ex nihilo creation is vital to Christian theology. Philosopher Wes Morriston has been a thorn in Craig's side for quite some time.

    Wes addressed this topic a few years ago in his paper Must the beginning of the universe have a personal cause?

    http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/wes2craig1.pdf

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #20 - July 13, 2015, 10:53 PM

    if the cause of the universe (god) is eternal, and the cause and effect occur simultaneously, wouldn't the effect (the universe) also be eternal?

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #21 - July 13, 2015, 10:59 PM

    I'm not sure if a cause that is simultaneous with the universe entails that the universe itself must be eternal. However, as TMM points out in the video.. the universe wouldn't need to have a beginning to have a cause if the cause could be simultaneous with the universe, so your position wouldn't be an infeasible one.

    Talking about causation is messy and I'm on my tablet atm, not a good mix.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #22 - July 13, 2015, 11:09 PM

    Check this out if you haven't already.

    https://youtu.be/WuUupE6_PQQ

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #23 - July 14, 2015, 12:04 AM

    WLC would just respond with an argument from simultaneous causation and talk about asymmetric dependency relations. The better way to refute Kalam as many philosophers have noted (and Sean Caroll did this in his debate which I don't find too surprising given that Sean actively engages with philosophy) is to argue against the principle of sufficient reason. If one can successfully object to PSR then the KCA breaks down as a result. No amount of appeals to the nonexistence of actual infinities would be able to help Craig. Simple, yet effective.

    Kevin deLaplante did a good video on the status of causation within both philosophy and physics:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAgT_8KtICg&list=PLCD69C3C29B645CBC&index=6

    Here's another good video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8LuTdrCWVw



    Sean Carroll is a personal favourite of mine:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R97IHcuyWI0&index=51&list=PLyeD_WB5vKdoEvkeEgwbrJFf1SzYHcsNy

    That clip alone tore wholes on WLC's arguments.

    Thanks for those 2 videos, im going straight to them now.
  • Who kares about kalam?
     Reply #24 - July 14, 2015, 10:16 PM

    No problem.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »