I think we can reach a free-willed creator using the Kalam cosmological argument.
Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Now this cause has to exist without a beginning, as deductible from the premises.
Any beginning-less entity will be infinite. But an infinite regression is vicious.
Therefore, this entity should not be quantitative or measurable in any dimension, as it would entail an infinite regress.
So, the first cause has to be outside of time or space, lest it should become quantitative.
This makes it supernatural.
This creator has to be logically prior to the universe. The reason as to why the universe began to exist at finite time in the past⌠is explained by will.
Therefore, a creator with a will.
Can somebody help me find fault with this argument?
apart from the fact that your first line is an unevidenced assumption, and is a flawed premise, the quote from your post means that your first cause has the identical attributes of something that simply does not exist.
Your âlogicalâ conclusion therefore is based on a flawed premise.
The Kalam argument has been debunked so many times and so comprehensively everywhere that free expression is permitted that I am surprised that anyone should find it convincing.
The issue with arguments of this nature is that despite how logical the procedure of variables appears, you still havenât provided any evidence whatsoever of godâs existence.
Oh FUCK! The Kalam gets you no where near a creator.
What is the conclusion of the Kalam?
"Therefore the Univers Had a Beginning"
Not one word about a God. And whether or not the Universe had a beginning, has nothing to do with the Cosmos, of which we know nothing about. Once we get to Planck time "PHYSICS STOPS WORKING., time no longer functions in one direction, causality breaks down. We know nothing beyond Planck Time. We know nothng and neither do you.
No, it is not deducible from the premise. You are merely asserting it. Do you know what deduction is? HINT: the inference of particular instances by reference to a general law or principl.
The general law or principle you have cited is that âEverything has a beginning.â You can not deduce an eternal being from the accepted fact that everything has a beginning. The only thing we can possibly conclude from your premise is that if there were a god, it too would have a beginning. THAT IS DEDUCTION.
What you are doing is called "Special Pleadingâ and it is a fallacy. âEverything has a beginning except for this one special thing.â BULLSHT.
What do we call something that exists for NO TIME and in NO SPACE ---- can you figure that out?
HINT: âNOTHINGâ
No, it does not make it supernatural. It makes it "IMAGINARY.â
There is no âLogicâ in an argument from âSpecial Pleading.â All you did was make an assertion and you have yet to back it up with any evidence. You can not argue a God into existence.
Oh, how fucking easy was that. âOh⌠Welcome to the forum.â
If youâre going to concede universe is space and time, both of these had a beginning according to the big bang cosmology. There was an instance of when time was zero. In that sense itâs a beginning.
If the universe had a beginning, then according to the first premise, it has a cause.
Now, since our science hasnât given us concrete about this cause, we can only rely on philosophy to understand the nature of this first cause.
It could be an infinite regress of causes, but that would be vicious.
The only other option is that this cause is a necessary entity, always existing without a cause.
Always existing is another way of saying beginning-less.
Beginning-less simply means that for any point on its existence thereâs a prior point. Leading to an infinite regress of prior points. This also gets vicious.
Hence, this necessary cause has to be beginning-less, yet not quantitative in any dimension. That looks like supernatural to me, but you may call it whatever you want.
I would like to listen to your explanation. Are you subscribing to a necessary cause, or what?
No one argued that they didnât ⌠I give you, Our current universe had a beginning. That says nothing about the Cosmose. You can say nothing beyong Planck Time⌠It is not my fault you donât have a fucking clue about the fucing universe you live in. Perhaps if you had taken a science class.
The Universe has a cause⌠So what. Hamsters were the cause. I can make an assertion too. You can say NOTHING about that cause⌠well⌠nothing without a PhD in cosmology anyway. There are some theories; and NO SUPPORT WHAT SO EVER FOR A GOD HYPOTHESIS.
No. We donât rely on Philosophy and we certainly donât rely on your fallacious bullshit. Nothing in Philosophy is accepted as FACT without evidence.
Say it any way you like⌠You can not, BOTH, assert that everything has a beginning and then something "this special thingâ does not have a beginning. YOUR LOGIC IS ALL FUCKED UP.
Do you even know what âviciousâ means in that context?
There is no "Hence.â There is your bullshit assumption based on NOTHING. If your god can be infinate so can the universe. There is nothing âNecessaryâ about a God thing. Demonstrate how you ruled out Natural Causation.
It looks like supernatural⌠It looks like made up fantasy Bullshit.
There is no âOntological Argument.â There are 'Onmtological Arguments." It is a class of arguments. Why donât you take a class in Philosophy before you start spouting nonsense.
"I shall take it for granted that the connection between
what I call ontological arguments and traditional presentations of âtheâ ontological argument (there is, of course, no one
argument that can be called the ontological argument) is plain.
I make the following historical claim without arguing for it:
Every well-known âversion of the ontological argumentâ is
either, (i) essentially the same as one of the arguments called
ontological herein, or (ii) invalid or outrageously questionbegging, or (iii) stated in language so confusing it is not possible to say with any confidence just what its premises are or
what their relation to its conclusion is supposed to be. 1 should
myself be inclined to place all historical âversions of the ontological argumentâ in category (iii), but this is a function ofthe way 1 read them: I would place many of the arguments
certain contemporary philosophers claim to see in the original
sources in one of the first two categories.
@Cognostic
There are ontological arguments put forward by atheist philosophers as well. I am asking if you subscribe to any of those? So may be we can explore that
Iâm an atheist. Iâve looked at most and pretty much recognize all. They are all base on the same fallacious logic you are trying to pull. You donât know shit about what happened before the Big Bang, you can say nothing about anything before Plank time without soundiung like an idiot.
What do you not understand about that. Time itself breaks down at Plank time. We stop at the hot dense mass that began to Expand. âBig Bangâ cosmology is an evidenced theory. The God hypothesis is based on bullshit fallacious reasoning. The Kalam takes you NO PLACE Near a God. It only says the universe had a beginnin. âThat can not even be demonstrated but I gave it to you.â Now demonstrate your god. Stop asserting necessity. I can assert that a banana was the necessary cause with just as much evidence as you have for your god thing. Demonstrate a god. You donât have to demonstrate your God, I donât have to demonstrate my big Yellow Banana. Have a nice day.
Nonsense. Argument from ignorance. Uh, since I have no scientific explanation for why Lemmings march off of cliffs, maybe they have decided life has no meaning without God.
Likewise, why do people believe in Gods without any evidence for such?
No no andâŚNO. Our current understanding is that the presentation of reality which we acknowledge MAY have begun with the Big Bang. However, that so-called âbeginningâ is described as such due to our dependence on space- time for a qualifier of existence. Something described as âoutside of space and timeâ is the definition for non-existence.
Can you provide a reliable method for demonstrating anything supernatural? Do we have an example of something supernatural which can be examined, observed, quantified, or understood? If the answer is no, that does not automatically establish supernaturality. All it establishes is that our current understanding and scientific methodologies do not presently possess the means by which it can be demonstrated to exist.
Since Bigfoot cannot be shown to exist by scientific methods, maybe we should employ philosophy,⌠or oh I donât know, maybe hydraulicsâŚsheesh⌠ever heard of âGod of the gapsâ argument?
Honestly, you should get outside of your hole and read something which does not assuage your fears and anxieties concerning the nature of reality with wild assertions and conjectures.
Who the fuck cares? What donât you understand? Your âLOGICâ is fallacious. Come up with an argument that is not based on a fallacious position.
Next: What in the world makes you think that an atheist has to come up with any sort of 'ARGUMENT" at all? Your LOGIC is once again FALLACIOUS.
Do you know what the âNULL HYPOTHESISâ is? The time to believe something is after there is evidence for the claim. You are the one making the claim via the Kalam, and a bunch of bullshit attached to the Kalam. There is absolutely no justification for anything you have attached to the Kalam. NONE.
I gave you the Kalam, âThe universe had a beginning.â Now demonstrate your god. Demonstrate it exists independent of Big Bang Cosmology. Demonstrate it is non-caused even though the Kalam argues that it must be caused. The Kalam does not argue, âEverything has a cause but my favorite God.â That is not the Kalam and if it was the Kalam the god argued for would be Allah.
I donât have to do shit. You are trying to âSHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF.â Another bunch of fallacious rot. I donât have to do shit. Atheists do not need Cosmological Arguments to demonstrate anything. You made the claim, now stop your âSpecial Pleadingâ your bullshit attempt at âShifting the burden of proof,â and as âSkritenâ pointed out, your attempt at an argument from ignorance. Your Brain is Fucked Up son. Religion has completely twisted your ability to think straight. There is nothing even resembling âLOGICâ or âDeductionâ in anything you have asserted. NOTHING.
