The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Crispy Bacon]

 

Let me know what you guys think about the video (please be opened to the idea of a God)

[Ophiolite]

I suspect you are somewhat persuaded by the thesis of the video. In that case would you take the time to summarise that central argument here please - in your own words.

[Crispy Bacon]

I suspect you are somewhat persuaded by the thesis of the video. In that case would you take the time to summarise that central argument here please - in your own words.T

The video says it sooo much better, it is only 4 mins long and you might like it if you just let yourself.

It is nearly 6 A.M. here! I'm going to bed. Make sure to leave a comment on your thoughts about the video. Try to stay respectful! The world would be a much better place if everyone was respectful to each other.

 

Goodnight, I will be back in 8 hours to check on this forum.

[Ophiolite]

As a matterof principle I rarely view videos linked through forums.

 

I find concepts much more credible when their proponents are able to express the key elements in clear, concise terms. So another principle I follow is to ignore links like these until such times as the proponent offers such a summary. (I'll make a deal with you: if you don't find that position rude, I won't find your position rude, either.)

[Crispy Bacon]

As a matterof principle I rarely view videos linked through forums.

 

I find concepts much more credible when their proponents are able to express the key elements in clear, concise terms. So another principle I follow is to ignore links like these until such times as the proponent offers such a summary. (I'll make a deal with you: if you don't find that position rude, I won't find your position rude, either.)

Okay, when I get back (in 8 hours) I will give you a detailed summary of the video. I'm just so tired I haven't slept in 24 hours. If you can't wait 8 hours just watch the video and tell me what you think I will be back to read your thoughts in 8 h. Bye.

[Ophiolite]

Thank you. I'll look forward to that. Sleep well.

 

 

Edit: Unable to open video. Probably protected by company firewall. So, i really do need to see your summary tomorrow.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Ophiolite

[swansont]

I gave it the first minute. It's argument from incredulity and appeal to ridicule rolled into one, plus it conveniently ignores the "if everything must have a cause, then what cause God to exist?" discussion. Maybe that gets addressed later. I can't see how anyone could be persuaded by this logic. Emotionally, yes, I'm sure that the choir being preached to love it, but the rational aspect? Fail.

[Griffon]

Swansont - exactly. Though many have been persuaded by the cosmological argument down the centuries. The fallacy is contained in the assertion that everything has a cause.

[swansont]

Swansont - exactly. Though many have been persuaded by the cosmological argument down the centuries. The fallacy is contained in the assertion that everything has a cause.

 

Yes. I broke down and watched the rest of it, and it's clear they are trying to debunk an argument science rendered moot almost 100 years ago.

[john5746]

 

I thought a short video in response would be appropriate.

 

One big glaring thing that sticks out to me in the OP's vid is that we never observe nothing or matter coming into existence in the normal world. An egg or a baby is just transformation of atoms, not "something coming into existence". It is just the intuitive application of what we see in our normal day to day lives onto the universe. Science can do so much better.

Edited July 30, 2013 by john5746

[ydoaPs]

While Kalaam is valid, it is nowhere close to sound.

 

The first premise ("Whatever begins to exist has a cause") is unsupported and unsupportable:

 

"Begins to exist" is the bit we need to pay attention to. There are two kinds of "begin to exist"; one kind is previously existing stuff being rearranged into other effectively new things and the other is stuff popping out of nothing. The first is called "Creatio ex materia" and is the only one we have any evidence for requiring causes. The second is called "Creatio ex nihilo" and is the one the argument claims applies to the universe (which, it actually doesn't).

 

These two things are radically different and barely resemble each other. To use evidence for one as evidence for both is incompetence at best and lying at worse.

 

The second premise ("The universe began to exist") is false:

 

The universe has always existed and will always exist. This is true whether or not the past is infinitely long (bringing up arguments against an infinite past is called a "red herring" and is more evidence that apologists are being disingenuous). The fact is, at every point in time, there is a point in time. There is no such thing as "before" the universe. So, it is not the case that there was nothing then there was the universe. It is also not the case that there was other stuff then there was the universe. Not only because there is no before the universe, but also because there is no such thing as other stuff when we are talking about the universe.

 

There is one option that they could take to try to disingenuously say the universe has a cause (which, they sometimes do) by defining "begin to exist" as something like "Object O begins to exist at time t iff object O exists at time t and there is no time prior to t at which O exists". On that definition, the universe begins to exist only because there is no time prior to t.

 

And, here's the kicker. That definition of "begins to exist" (and anything else that could be used to accurately describe the universe) also applies to God. So, if the universe began to exist, God did as well. This leaves open, by the Kalaam argument (assuming the first premise is true), the question "Who created God?" and we have infinite regress.

[John Cuthber]

About 1 minute and 5 seconds it it tacitly asserts that things don't just come into existence- because if they did, we would notice them.

This fails to take account of the facts that

Things do just pop into existence and

we do observe them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

 

Just plain wrong.

[Crispy Bacon]

 

I thought a short video in response would be appropriate.

 

One big glaring thing that sticks out to me in the OP's vid is that we never observe nothing or matter coming into existence in the normal world. An egg or a baby is just transformation of atoms, not "something coming into existence". It is just the intuitive application of what we see in our normal day to day lives onto the universe. Science can do so much better.

 

Some of the best examples of the fallacy of equivocation involve treating the word nothing as if it were a type of something. The quantum vacuum is a type of something. It has properties. It has energy, it fluctuates, it can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, it obeys the equations of quantum field theory. We can describe it. We can calculate, predict and falsify its properties. The quantum vacuum is not nothing. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem postulates that the quantum vacuum must have an absolute beginning.

[ydoaPs]

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem postulates that the quantum vacuum must have an absolute beginning.

No, it doesn't.

[Crispy Bacon]

"Who created God?" and we have infinite regress.

You're just like richard dickens. NO one believes in created gods. Created gods are a delusion, and that's why he named his book the god delusion.

 

The Bible both says God is beyond timeTitus 1:2 and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't effect him Psalm 102:25-27.

No, it doesn't.

 

"as hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning." - Alan Guth

 

 

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin Tufts University Many Worlds in One, p. 176

[ydoaPs]

You're just like richard dickens. NO one believes in created gods. Created gods are a delusion, and that's why he named his book the god delusion.

 

The Bible both says God is beyond timeTitus 1:2 and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't effect him Psalm 102:25-27.

Bible verses aren't an adequate response to detailed reasoning. Nor is cropping quotes to cut out the reasoning.

"as hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning." - Alan Guth

 

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin Tufts University Many Worlds in One, p. 176

That's a nice quote mine you have there. Do you even know what their theorem implies? The only thing it says is that there is a first ordered state of expansion. That's it. It doesn't imply a beginning to anything but the expansion.

 

It is still the case that there is absolutely no sense in which the universe didn't exist and then it did.

[Crispy Bacon]

I suspect you are somewhat persuaded by the thesis of the video. In that case would you take the time to summarise that central argument here please - in your own words.

 

Hey, I will do that for you when I get back, I will try to be back fast. Sorry for the long wait.

[John Cuthber]

"The Bible both says God is beyond time"

That's special pleading.

It's a logical fallacy.

I could equally well say that "the universe is a special case- the need for creation doesn't apply to it".

Also, you have yet to answer the point about the observed reality of things popping in and out of existence.

There's evidence for that- but none for God.

[ydoaPs]

Also, you have yet to answer the point about the observed reality of things popping in and out of existence.

There's evidence for that- but none for God.

Well, they're not exactly popping out of nothing, since there's spacetime. We simply don't have nothing to observe. Nothingness is the absence of everything. No space. No time. No matter. None of the rules for our universe apply. Unluckily for Crispy Bacon, that also applies to things like Conservation of Energy and the very notion of Causality itself. Which makes the claim "You can't get something from nothing" dubious at best.

 

But, again, that's all beside the point as there is no sense at all in which the universe didn't exist and then it came into existence.

[Crispy Bacon]

"The Bible both says God is beyond time"

That's special pleading.

It's a logical fallacy.

I could equally well say that "the universe is a special case- the need for creation doesn't apply to it".

Also, you have yet to answer the point about the observed reality of things popping in and out of existence.

There's evidence for that- but none for God.

You are talking about the quantum vacuum which is NOT nothing.

But, again, that's all beside the point as there is no sense at all in which the universe didn't exist and then it came into existence.

 

What about the 2nd law?

I gave it the first minute. It's argument from incredulity and appeal to ridicule rolled into one, plus it conveniently ignores the "if everything must have a cause, then what cause God to exist?" discussion. Maybe that gets addressed later. I can't see how anyone could be persuaded by this logic. Emotionally, yes, I'm sure that the choir being preached to love it, but the rational aspect? Fail.

 

Exactly, "everything which beggins to exist has a cause apart from itself" - God didn't begin to exist.

[Strange]

Exactly, "everything which beggins to exist has a cause apart from itself" - God didn't begin to exist.

 

Why doesn't that apply to the universe?

[Crispy Bacon]

 

Why doesn't that apply to the universe?

 

Because all the scientific evidence (that I know of) points to a beginning, and there is no scientific evidence (that I know of) that points to an enternal universe.

 

Even Richard Dawkins believes the universe began to exist and that guy has "Alot" of sources.

[Griffon]

To Crispy Bacon ...

 

Why doesn't your "everything" include God? Why is God the special entity that needs no point of creation?

 

And if you admit the possibility of the existence of a prime cause that had no cause, why can't that cause be the universe itself rather than a supernatural entity?

Edited July 30, 2013 by Griffon

[Crispy Bacon]

Why doesn't "everything" include God?

 

Why is God the special entity that needs no point of creation?

 

And if you admit the possibility of the existence of a prime cause that had no cause, why can't that cause be the universe itself rather than a supernatural entity?

 

Again "everything which "begins to exist" has a cause apart from itself. The Christian God never began to exist! You can't make up your own god and apply your gods limitations to mine!!

[Strange]

 

Because all the scientific evidence (that I know of) points to a beginning, and there is no scientific evidence (that I know of) that points to an enternal universe.

 

I don't know of any scientific evidence that points to a beginning of the universe (a lot of speculation ... but a lot of speculation about an eternal/cyclic universe as well).

 

There may be no scientific evidence that points to an eternal universe but then ... there is no scientific evidence that points to an eternal god, either.