Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Kalam Argument

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 12 posts ] 
Kalam Argument
Author Message
EpicionPosts: 72Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:10 am

Post Kalam Argument

Can someone give a detailed rebuttal against this argument for me? I watched some of tooltime's videos but some vocabulary which he used was a bit beyond me. Temporal, Atemporal regress among others.

Thanks in advance.
Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:14 am
ImprobableJoeUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: Kalam Argument

It is garbage.

Detailed enough for you? :lol:

Seriously, though... there's no need for a detailed rebuttal, because the argument is pathetically simple:

Everything that begins has a cause. The universe began. Therefore, Goddidit. The rest is just window dressing.

What part did you specifically want refuted?
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:19 am
EpicionPosts: 72Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:10 am

Post Re: Kalam Argument

Well,

A number of things, let me explain

1: Everything that exists must have a cause

My rebuttal was that the laws of causality only exist within the universe, so everything in the universe can have a cause but it's not pre-made. Forexample the energy, atoms and elements don't have a cause, It's we who manipulate it and dictate it to have a cause.

2: The universe must have a beginning thus it has a cause

No, once again, The laws of causality do not exist outside of the universe, It's a concept of the interaction between physical objects and time. As time is confirmed to exist after the big bang and after the universe atleast begun to exist. the laws of causality are inside the universe. So to say that "The universe has a cause" is fallacious

3: If the universe has a cause then it must have a creator

Who created the creator?

4: Noone, in order to end the cycle, there has to be something that is uncreated and therefore God is the logical creator as he exists outside of time and space.

Well, in that case the singularity must be uncreated because time/space are concepts that began once the big bang happened. Therefore it must have not had a cause which completely falsifies you invoking god.






Those were my basic rebuttals to the arguments, but I am always happy to accept any new rebuttals or any corrections to my understanding of our current scientific understanding.
Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:32 am
ImprobableJoeUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: Kalam Argument

Epicion wrote:Well,

A number of things, let me explain

1: Everything that exists must have a cause

My rebuttal was that the laws of causality only exist within the universe, so everything in the universe can have a cause but it's not pre-made. Forexample the energy, atoms and elements don't have a cause, It's we who manipulate it and dictate it to have a cause.

2: The universe must have a beginning thus it has a cause

No, once again, The laws of causality do not exist outside of the universe, It's a concept of the interaction between physical objects and time. As time is confirmed to exist after the big bang and after the universe atleast begun to exist. the laws of causality are inside the universe. So to say that "The universe has a cause" is fallacious

3: If the universe has a cause then it must have a creator

Who created the creator?

4: Noone, in order to end the cycle, there has to be something that is uncreated and therefore God is the logical creator as he exists outside of time and space.

Well, in that case the singularity must be uncreated because time/space are concepts that began once the big bang happened. Therefore it must have not had a cause which completely falsifies you invoking god.






Those were my basic rebuttals to the arguments, but I am always happy to accept any new rebuttals or any corrections to my understanding of our current scientific understanding.


Hmmm... #4 right off the bat strikes me as a place where you can point out that anything that "exists outside of time and space" exists outside of causality as well, which means it cannot have had any effect on our universe.

Also, the "must have a beginning" for the universe and not "God" fails because the Kalam infinite regress problem creates problems for "God" as well. The argument claims that there cannot be an "actual infinity" because if times goes back for eternity you can't get to any individual moment (which is mathematically unsound, as far as I know). At the same time, the claim is that "God" exists outside of time and therefore doesn't follow the rules. The problem there is that a being that exists without time cannot act, because action involves time and causality.

And, of course, Kalam fails to establish the attributes of any hypothetical "creator" and is therefore useless for supporting any specific religion.
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:54 am
EpicionPosts: 72Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:10 am

Post Re: Kalam Argument

the claim is that "God" exists outside of time and therefore doesn't follow the rules. The problem there is that a being that exists without time cannot act, because action involves time and causality.


how can god be limited to a creation he made e.g time.

Also I got my reply

"1. The universe can not have a cause because the laws of causality lie within the universe. It isn't a law that lies outside of the universe and thus the universe can never have a cause."

I am stating them (as I already said) not simply as an observed phenomena (though this actually backs up my claim) but as a general metaphysical claim, its is absurd that a thing have a beginning and it pop out of nothing or cause itself, do you really believe something like the following?:

"One day, there might be nothing. The next day, there might be a very large carrot. Nothing else in existence whatsoever, but there, all alone and larger than life, a huge carrot. If anything is possible, that certainly is. The day after that, the carrot might disappear and be replaced by a purple spotted gorilla. Why not? We are in a universe, or non-universe where anything or nothing might happen, for no reason. Why does this thought seem odd, or even ridiculous, whereas the thought that some law of physics might pop into existence does not? Logically, they are exactly on par." (Keith Ward)

So yes the principle applies to everything, and you assumed it too when you asked who caused God.

"2: Regarding everything that exists must have a cause, I disagree with this because it's just intellectual dishonesty. Everything does not have a cause, we create cause for it. E.g this keyboard im using did not have a cause until the atoms, elements were manipulated to manufacture it. Nothing has a cause unless we make it have a cause."

You misstate my argument again, I have repeated several times that not everything has a cause, I only said things that begin have a cause, take your example, could the keyboard come into existence itself? No matter what the cause, it has a cause, I am not asking that we know what the cause is, I am just saying that if the keyboard did not exist and then came into existence (however that may be) then it MUST have a cause, unless you want to deal with the problems of the above quote.

"3: Causality is a law that is the interaction of physical objects and time, both these concepts are inside the universe thus causality can never exist outside the universe. This is a further supplement to my first point"

If you study the metaphysics of causation you will know that there is such a thing an atemporal cause, or an essential cause or many other times, but these two are relevant here, so take the relationship with a piece of paper resting on a desk, now I am not talking about the placement of the paper on the desk but now that its resting on the desk, there is a causal relationship going on here, it is not a temporal relationship yet one thing is the cause of the other; the desk if the cause of the resting of the paper.

Or think of the movement of fish in water or think how long it takes between my pushing an object and that object being pushed. So the first moment of the universe could be simulations with the first moment of time.

This kind of causation is generally accepted amongst philosophers and Id think physicists too.

"4: Also you completely mistook science and it's standing regarding the beginning of the universe or even time. The beginning of something , does not mean it began to exist. To suggest that would mean, the singularity came about of nothing e.g a creator caused it to happen"

I used the data and took it to its logical conclusion, science stops just before it gets there, I used simple reason and logic, its not empirical so beying science but then again so is M-theory and multiverse.

"5: The idea of existence is that it lies within the universe. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that something can not be "created" but only rearranged e.g that's where the laws of energy come into play and how it can only be manipulated but never created. To suggest the singularity was caused by something to exist, or even had a cause is in itself a fallacy."

Again you are redefining existence, the idea of existence if whatever might exist, thats all. You need to actually show what I said was a fallacy, you merely asserted it, you must show how my conclusion does not follow from my premises.

"6: Last but not least, the entire kalam argument even if you follow it through does not actually lead to a creator. It makes blind assertions that certain things did not exist before a certain time which is something no one can prove. It's faith. Also regarding the creator not having a cause, actually no. Once again you assert that the creator must have not had a cause as a form of special pleading. If you have a rule that everything that exists must have a cause, then god must be existed because of a cause. If you refuse to accept that god was not created or brought into existence via a cause, then why can't the universe be made into existence without a cause?"

As I argued it does lead to a creator, I did not simply assert it, I argued it with true premisses (that you agreed to at the time) and sound logic, you are just asserting that all the argument does is assert thing, it does not, it reasons to them. And what do you mean by prove? like I said I reasoned to these conclusions using sound logic, the conclusions follow inescapably.

About special pleading: firstly I showed how it in fact is NOT special pleading, the only way you get that if if you misstate my argument and create a strawman; again NOT everything has a cause, only things that begin to exist (please re-read some of my previous replies). I gave you a number of other reasons and pointed out the fallacies in the question in my last reply.

On the other hand is it not special pleading to accept causation and then reject it for the universe as you did? This is special pleading.

Once again I never stated everything must have a cause my claim is more modest then that and as a result my argument does not fall victim to special pleading fallacies.

And it is just your assertion that the kalam has failed by looking at online material only, you need to refute what I have said, this reply nor your previous ones have done that so far.
Last edited by Epicion on Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:16 am
AndroidARUser avatarPosts: 46Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:34 pmLocation: Somewhere with a Mawile

Post Re: Kalam Argument

I don't know if you just posted his reply to you or your reply to him or what. Could you put his words in quote-boxes please? That'll make it a fuckton easier to analyze.

Anyways, is he arguing that God needs not a cause, because the "omniversal realm" (the 'outside' of our universe) does not subscribe to the laws of causality?

(BTW, "time" as we know it DID begin in our universe with the big bang, BUT even if our universes "time" didn't exist outside our universe, the passage of events is still a form of "time." Without time, nothing happens.)
Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:52 am
WWW
bipolarGodUser avatarPosts: 32Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:11 am

Post Re: Kalam Argument

a⋅tem⋅po⋅ral  [ey-tem-per-uhl, ey-tem-pruhl] Show IPA
-adjective
free from limitations of time.



tem⋅po⋅ral1  [tem-per-uhl, tem-pruhl] Show IPA
Use temporal in a Sentence
See web results for temporal
-adjective
1. of or pertaining to time.
2. pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly: temporal joys.
3. enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory (opposed to eternal ).
4. Grammar.
a. of, pertaining to, or expressing time: a temporal adverb.
b. of or pertaining to the tenses of a verb.
5. secular, lay, or civil, as opposed to ecclesiastical.
-noun Usually, temporals.
6. a temporal possession, estate, or the like; temporality.
7. something that is temporal; a temporal matter or affair.


re⋅gress  [v. ri-gres; n. ree-gres] Show IPA
-verb (used without object)
1. to move backward; go back.
2. to revert to an earlier or less advanced state or form.
-noun
3. the act of going back; return.
4. the right to go back.
5. backward movement or course; retrogression.
Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:55 am
EpicionPosts: 72Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:10 am

Post Re: Kalam Argument

I've put his reply in quote marks now, thankyou for the replies.

Also thanks for the definitions of those words BiPolar
Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:22 am
ImprobableJoeUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: Kalam Argument

AndroidAR wrote:I don't know if you just posted his reply to you or your reply to him or what. Could you put his words in quote-boxes please? That'll make it a fuckton easier to analyze.

Anyways, is he arguing that God needs not a cause, because the "omniversal realm" (the 'outside' of our universe) does not subscribe to the laws of causality?

(BTW, "time" as we know it DID begin in our universe with the big bang, BUT even if our universes "time" didn't exist outside our universe, the passage of events is still a form of "time." Without time, nothing happens.)
That's the point I was making: a "God" capable of acting must exist within some form of time and space.
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:01 pm
OnkelCannabiaUser avatarPosts: 156Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:46 pmLocation: Germany

Post Re: Kalam Argument

The question is what attribute does the KCA god have that can't be apllied to anything else. What is it that makes god so absolutely necessary? Why can't anything else besides god exist outside of time and space? Why does this god have to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent or even just conscious?The KCA claims there can be no actual infinite in the past. Then what about the timeless god it postulate? How is thinking not a series of events? How is making decision not based on cause and effect.
If god is timeless he needs to be changeless or the KCA destroys itself. If he is changeless how could he have created the universe?
Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:20 pm
ICQ
ImprobableJoeUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: Kalam Argument

OnkelCannabia wrote:The question is what attribute does the KCA god have that can't be apllied to anything else. What is it that makes god so absolutely necessary? Why can't anything else besides god exist outside of time and space? Why does this god have to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent or even just conscious?The KCA claims there can be no actual infinite in the past. Then what about the timeless god it postulate? How is thinking not a series of events? How is making decision not based on cause and effect.
If god is timeless he needs to be changeless or the KCA destroys itself. If he is changeless how could he have created the universe?

Scary that apologists have written volumes on the subject, and magically missed something that is plainly obvious to the rest of us?
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:50 pm
nemesissUser avatarPosts: 1259Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Post Re: Kalam Argument

ImprobableJoe wrote:
OnkelCannabia wrote:The question is what attribute does the KCA god have that can't be apllied to anything else. What is it that makes god so absolutely necessary? Why can't anything else besides god exist outside of time and space? Why does this god have to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent or even just conscious?The KCA claims there can be no actual infinite in the past. Then what about the timeless god it postulate? How is thinking not a series of events? How is making decision not based on cause and effect.
If god is timeless he needs to be changeless or the KCA destroys itself. If he is changeless how could he have created the universe?



Scary that apologists have written volumes on the subject, and magically missed something that is plainly obvious to the rest of us?


that last part is easy to explain; they were not looking for such an answer and the view that did probably ignored it or held it to themselves. Its not that strange that wouldn't come with something like that because it doesn't support their agenda.
Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:48 am
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 12 posts ] 
Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest