Question 1: Kalam Cosmological Argument

Something From Nothing:
Krauss This is probably a good place to start.

Perhaps you should read the journals, and not the popularization of science sources. GIGO

No, it does not make sense. You are using semantics to coddle yourself. I should maybe rephrase " doesn’t get you closer to the god of the bible" to “get you closer to any mythological, fanciful being that you can conceive or have been indoctrinated to believe in”

Regarding your previous questions in response to my answers I think Cog and Mr Killens have adequately answered for me.

Its irrational, as it contains known common logical fallacies. Most of his assertions are either flawed or just pure assumptions, or they contradict each other.

I also don’t believe you can argue something into existence, and that in the complete absence of any objective evidence, withholding belief is justified.

Why do you find it compelling? There are multiple threads on here debunking first cause arguments, including the KCA, and WLC’s version, which as far as I can see simply assumes the cause is his deity right at the end, by making unevidenced assumptions about the deity he is arguing for, this is a begging the question fallacy by the way.

My response is that WLC does not speak for truth. He speaks only for his faith. He has often publicly admitted that if faced with incontrovertible evidence that denied any tenet of his religious faith he would wholeheartedly reject the evidence in a heart beat. Such a breathtaking admission to rejecting objective truth in favour of subjective bias reveals the travesty in the branding of his style of Christian pre-suppositionalist philosophy as sincere enquiry or suitable material for honest debate.
At least Aristotle and the 12th century Islamic scholars had the benefit of their ignorance, they knew no better.
But WLC surrounded by the very latest in quantum physics research and science, wilfully and persistently denies their relevance. Lacking original thought or even divine inspiration, he can only arrogate and distort an ancient debunked principle. The sudden introduction of his “uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists, who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful” is unwarranted and comprises a preposterous set of assumptions that would have made even ancient Greek and mediaeval Muslim philosophers choke.

That is an interesting argument, but over a trivial event. It does no harm to either party on what they decide. But Carl Sagan has one profound saying …

‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’

For your proposition on the origin of the universe and the god question, that is extraordinary. Whatever the truth is, it will have an incredible impact on mankind, history, politics, everyone. So for these issues, we must apply great diligence, proper thinking and never accept anything casually.

In your presentation of the Kalam, you were sloppy and casual. You did not clearly define the Kalam or go into detail. You did not present the arguments or counter-arguments, you just asked “hey, what do you think of the Kalam”?

@studentfinalpaper Please understand I have no intention of ripping you, but pointing out how to improve your position.

If a scientist explained something as they understand, the public would hear technical jargon that goes over their heads and becomes gibberish. For example, as an electrician I can explain something in technical terms, and if you were not versed in electricity, it would be gibberish. So I dumb it down, so a layperson can grasp the fundamental concepts.

The one and only way to understand what they mean is to read their papers, where they lay everything out.

That is also a fair statement, Watch lectures by Brian Cox, Niel DeGrass Tyson, or Lawrence Krauss. They are all entertaining speakers who know their shit. It’s a good place to start.

Hey Guys! Sorry for the gap in communication! I’m finishing up my paper! YOu guys are AMAZING I’m really liking engaging on these topics. I’ll respond right after the paper! Ya’ll have given me a lot to think about! 2

To be accurate “things transform (bond, repel, chemically mix, etc) in existence. For example, hydrogen and oxygen H2O :sweat_drops:

What has been demonstrated to “come into existence” from (a lose idea of) NOTHING?.

There has always been something. Demonstrated to Planck Time.

Effect has been demonstrated BEFORE cause (quantum)…

Copy and pasted in all three posts. Lol! Like most of the theist students - I highly doubt we’ll hear back after the paper (knowledge mined us).

1 Like

Will you be posting the paper (or a link or something)?

1 Like

I’m starting to wonder…

Could god=nothing cut it? I mean we get theists claiming god is love or universe is god. We get the whole “there HAS to be a cause”.

Stop eye rolling :crazy_face: - read -

God has NOT been demonstrated to exist
Nothing has NOT been demonstrated to exist

Cannot qualify NOTHING
Cannot qualify god

No one has yet demonstrated something from NOTHING
No one has yet demonstrated something from god

The “nothing” is as useful a tool as the “god” (labels)
Husband: “what’s wrong?”
Wife: “nothing!”

Lol :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

1 Like

I may have to change my mind about prophecy, since you seem to have read my mind. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

[quote=“Old_man_shouts_at_cl, post:23, topic:847, full:true”]

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl, If it does not make sense please explain why so I can clarify! I feel that this is a really important point.

Your Statement: “StudentFinalPaper’s argument does not get me any closer to God.”

My Recommended Modification “StudentFinalPaper’s argument does not get conclusively to God.”

Reasoning: It is fair to state that the arguments I put out don’t conclusively get us to God (it might for some) but not reasonable to state that there were 0 movements in that direction.

Expansion 1: If we both look at a 2D shape and I say it’s a triangle and you say it’s a circle then in order for one of us to be right the shape has to meet the all of the criteria of our proposed shapes definition. If the shape we are looking at truly has 1 corner on it, then we have logically moved closer to it potentially being a triangle. By meeting at least 1 criterion of a triangle’s definition, we actually have moved closer to it potentially being a triangle. This is how cumulative cases are built in court and logic when singular conclusive evidence is not available or one wants to bolster their position. (as a sub point we have also debunked that it is a circle since an essential requirement for circles are that they have no corners)

Expansion 2: If after revealing that the shape we are looking at has a corner you say: “this get’s you no closer to having a triangle” or variant “this proves nothing” then your statement would be unreasonable because triangles have corners while circles do not. Now you could say: “this does not prove conclusively that we’re looking at a triangle because lot’s of shapes have corners not just triangles” and that statement would be fair and correct. But your first assertion would be unreasonable to hold since 1 criterion of the triangle has already been met.

Expansion 3: As a theist, I would assert that the God of my particular religion has the characteristic of being beginning-less (there was not a time where he was not) and causeless (there was not another entity/event that caused Him to be). The universe is finite and therefore had a beginning. To argue an infinite past of any variation leads to an infinite regress which is a logical absurdity. Therefore, there would have to be an absolute start to a singular/multiverse. If this is the case then there has to be an absolute beginning where the universe came into existence. Since things to not pop out of existence from nothing then some Entity would have had to cause the universe to exist (which I’ll dub The Cause for now). We don’t know everything about the universe BUT we can assert this from logic: infinite regresses in this contexts cannot exist since if we have an infinite past then we could never arrive at the present moment. If that’s the case then everything has to stop at a Cause. But if the Cause exist’s it has to have certain characteristics to stop the logical absurdity of an infinite past regress. This means that The Cause MUST have at least 2 characteristics: ONE, The Cause must be Causeless (otherwise infinite regress of "who caused The Cause, and who caused the Cause that caused the Cause, and so on); TWO, The Cause must be beginning-less (otherwise infinite regress of “what was before The Cause” and what was before The Before prior the Cause, etc). Therefore, in order to resolve logical absurdities, I would argue that there exists an entity - The Cause - which must have the argued 2 characteristics. But these characteristics match the criterion of a God - especially the God which I would assert exists.

Conclusion: Because of the facts listed above, like the triangle, we are indeed closer to the assertion that The Cause (or God) exists than Him/It not existing. It’s might not be conclusive (from the arguments mentioned), but we are indeed logically closer.

PS. Please provide arguments as to how I’m using semantics as a dodge and not a genuine rebuttal. Perhaps I missed something? That wasn’t my intention.

To All,

I finished my paper! I’ll try to stay on these threads (more realistically 1 thread at a time) and respond as long as I can. No promises though since I don’t want to give false expectations =/. You guys are great and I’m really impressed with the thought you guys put into your comments!

We don’t know if there was a before

I make no claim to being a physicist. However, I do happen to know an actual astro physicist. I asked him “What was there before the Big Bang?” He replied There was no before.He went on to explain further and lost me within 2 sentences. What I took from that is that time and space seem to have began with the big bang. BUT, I make no claims. I’ve posted this for interest , It could be quite wrong for all I know.****

***It’s the kind of question I would hope an astro physicist could answer. That in itself does not mean he will necessarily be right. However, I think probably a better chance of being right than say your average presuppositional apologist.

No you are not for the reasons stated. A ‘cause’ even if logically concluded (which it ain’t) is not a conclusion for a god or gods. It is a cause which could equally be Eric the Rainbow Farting Unicorn Who Lives in my Garage, Universe Vomiting Blue Bunnies, merely an accident (yes, that can be ‘a cause’) or the fevered imagination of an apologetics student. It could be absolutely anything.
No closer to a god, and, a particular god.

1 Like

Expansion 1: pretty accurate analogy

Good observation. And you acknowledge you may be closer to “identifying” HOWEVER there may be 4 or more corners which would make both of the guesses (to the shape) wrong.

Again, one is “ruled” out (intelligent to keep it 2d :+1:) but it does not make the other guess correct.

Alas… Expansion 3 does not hold to the logic you demonstrated in the previous two:

This is an assertion that I do not accept. I could assert my god is a fairy who farts :dash: universes

  • unlike a circle :o: triangle or octagon there is no measure

It is measured to Planck Time. Beyond that we have no knowledge (yet or ever).

Perhaps - but “infinity” existing within “infinities” and effect before cause are also “logical absurdities” - yet…

There could just as likely be infinite universes.

You are limiting the context (?) AND what demonstrable evidence do you have to support this statement?

“WHO???” Laughable. Why a “who” with your use of “The Cause” …

Planck Time is the cause of our universe’s beginning. Before this cause, we do not know (just as you argued for not knowing a “before” God).

You cannot simply assert a “bigger, better who” in place of Planck Time or try to place your invisible friend as before the known cause of this universe existing in the manner we observe it to exist as

Get that?

To relate it back to your analogy of the circle and triangle… science has demonstrated a corner (Planck Time). There is “no circle” (infinite timeless being outside the triangle) unless you have demonstrable evidence.

1 Like

Yes, things do not pop into existence (ignoring quantum mechanics). No valid scientist will accept that the known universe popped into existence. Therefore, please provide proof that the universe popped out of nowhere. Because you are the one making this claim.

You have not proven that a god was the cause. The cause has many explanations, as I mentioned, from a much larger cosmos. I just pointed out another explanation, thus rendering you plugging in a god as the cause a moot point.

That is the “god of the gaps fallacy”.

God exists beyond time and space. He exists in no time, for no time, and in no space. In a place with no time and no space where there is no place because a place would actually need time and space you could also find no god which does not need time or space to exist in no place.