|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Very well then; the answer is no. The other candidates are ruled out as ultimate causes because they are neither timeless, nor beginningless, nor immaterial, and are consequently subject to all the laws of nature, as well as to temporal becoming. I have yet to suggest they be eliminated as secondary states, secondary events, or proximate causes. Why can't a state be timeless, beginningless, and immaterial? Can the state of being God have these properties?
As for your objection to volition, perhaps one may posit an immaterial, transcendent, beginningless, changeless, and powerful, entity that brought the universe into existence (ex nihilo) without volition; but, I have no idea what that might be. No, you don't. Let's call it slud; and let's call such an entity but with volition Bob (so as not to prejudge the theological case). Neither of us knows much about slud or about Bob, or which if either of them is responsible for the universe. And we are in a particularly poor position to find out. If I had spent my whole life inside a large hollow tree, how much do you suppose I would know about the origin of trees? What could I know? In order to find that out I'd have to escape to the wider world in which trees are situated. If I supposed that they were built by something much like myself, this would be all very anthropomorphic, and a great sop to my vanity, but it would also be completely wrong. And if you showed me a tiny seed, I suspect that I would laugh at you ... but so it is, that's how it works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: This really makes no sense at all. Firstly, pointing out a major error on your part is not playing to the audience as you seem to think. Secondly, your "correction" in no way addresses the point nor does it improve your argument which remains an irrrational mess for the reason already stated. And thirdly it would be a ridiculous non-sequitur to claim that I agreed with the first premise of the Kalam argument on the basis that I noticed that your "argument" was nonsense. In fact I maintain that the first premise is problematic if taken in conjunction with the premise that there was no time preceding the universe.
quote: Again a response that makes no sense. It seems to be just lashing out, complete with the usual false accusation.
quote: In fact you did suggest it as I have already pointed out. You claimed that your timeless cause was capable of volition and when I pointed out the problem that volitional decisions could be seen as events, raising a question about this claim you merely said that you would accept this for the sake of argument with no further discussion. The obvious inference is that you reject the problem on the ground that you believe in the possibility of timeless events.
quote: And as we see you still fail to address the issue preferring instead to put words in my mouth.
quote: Again a completely irrational reply which fails to address the issue. One one thing I am clear, nothingness cannot itself have states - but things and collections of things can and do - and in fact must have states. And you have failed to offer any reason at all to think otherwise.
quote: And yet you have implied it, and I have explained exactly how you implied it - and you have offered no refutation.
quote: And yet you cannot address the central point of this discussion. How can you eliminate state and agent causes as possible causes of our universe without also eliminating agent causes - especially given the assumption of timelessness. You claim that the Kalam argument accomplishes it. It should be simple for someone who understands the Kalam argument to explain it. You only have to quote the relevant portion or lay out your own understanding of this argument. But you won't do it. You absolutely refuse to do it.
quote: So agent causes are not so distinct from event and state causes...Well that's progress of a sort, in that you are conceding that much. But it still doesn't get us any closer. However, since you deny the existence of states AND events in your timeless realm you already HAVE denied the possibility of event and state causes in that realm. At least you understand that you are being illogical in doing so.
quote: The question really at hand is why you should spend time producing additional arguments against a subset of causes while NOT producing arguments against possibilities that have not yet been considered at all. Why waste time with redundant arguments while neglecting those that need to be made ?
quote: I didn't notice you doing so, nor did I make any such claim.
quote: The only question is why you would bother on "insisting" a point which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I have never claimed that your timeless realm is temporally prior to our universe. It has never been an issue in the discussion. How odd that you should spend so much time addressing non-issues while refusing to address points that are essential to the discussion. I suggest that you consider the implications of your behaviour. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shimbabwe Member (Idle past 3891 days) Posts: 47 From: Murfreesboro, TN USA Joined: |
Hello PaulK, my new internet friend. I am sorry if you were offended by my behavior, which was in jest. You can rest assured that offending was not my intent. I was simply returning tit for tat; as I felt you were being facetious. Now back to the discussion. Perhaps I should refocus on the two premises of the KCA.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. What is your opinion on this premiss? Why is it problematicas you have indicatedon your view?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Shimbabwe writes: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. This is falsified by the existence of virtual particles that flit in and out of existence with no cause whatsoever. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Shimbabwe writes:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. Percy writes:
Couldn't we say that the "cause" of these virtual particles is the nature of the vacuum and the nature of quantum mechanics? If so, they DO have a cause. This is falsified by the existence of virtual particles that flit in and out of existence with no cause whatsoever. --Percy"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
kbertsche writes: Couldn't we say that the "cause" of these virtual particles is the nature of the vacuum and the nature of quantum mechanics? If so, they DO have a cause. Sure, we could say that. And we could say that the cause of the universe is the nature of nothingness. It's just another way of saying you don't know the cause. Causation means one event causes another event. One billiard ball striking another billiard ball causes it to move. Phenomena like the Casimir effect, virtual particles and radioactive decay have no cause. Some things have a cause, some things don't. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: This is problematic because it is essentially an intuitive idea, because the relationship between having a beginning and having a cause is unexplained, and because the concept of "beginning" is not adequately defined. This means that in precisely the case we wish to consider - the zero point of time - we cannot be sure if this claim is applicable or not. Does something that has always existed (in that there is no time when it did not exist) have a beginning ? Is it does, then does it require a cause, and if so, why ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. What is your opinion on this premiss? Why is it problematicas you have indicatedon your view? Well in addition to Paul's objection, which I agree with, I have another, which is that the premise has been carefully weaseled: it purports to be an empirical statement about causality but omits facts equally empirical. For example, it could just as well read: "Everything has a cause", only theists wouldn't like that, so they stick in "that begins to exist", with no particular reason for adding that qualification except saving their theology. It could, furthermore, read: "Everything has a cause which is prior to it in time", only that would never do --- 'cos then what happens to God sitting off in eternity? If we used that premise, which is supported by exactly the same observations as the original statement, then we'd come to quite a different conclusion, one unpalatable to the users of the KCA. It reminds me rather of the creationists' restatement of Pasteur's results as "life comes from life" --- they've stated it so that it would include God (who is by hypothesis alive in some sense) magicking into existence everything from aardvarks to zebras. (If it comes to that, it would include the spontaneous generation of fleas on dogs.) Now they could with equal empiricism and much greater accuracy say: "Every organism comes from the reproduction (perhaps with variation) of one or more similar (though not necessarily identical) organisms". Only they couldn't say that, because although it has the same empirical support as their vague mantra, they couldn't use it as a supporting argument for their belief in special creation, which would constitute an exception to this rule rather than an instance of it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shimbabwe Member (Idle past 3891 days) Posts: 47 From: Murfreesboro, TN USA Joined: |
Percy writes: This is falsified by the existence of virtual particles that flit in and out of existence with no cause whatsoever. The evidence for short lived virtual particles on vacuum fluctuation models is not a refutation of the first premiss. These particles, though indeterminate on Heisenberg, are subsumed in a vast sea of energywhich is not nothing and do not come to exist at any specific point. Effectively, they already exist in the vacuum. Moreover, indeterminacy isn’t the only game in town, though I concede here it is the prevailing view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
But everything has a cause, right? What causes virtual particles to flit into existence?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shimbabwe Member (Idle past 3891 days) Posts: 47 From: Murfreesboro, TN USA Joined: |
Dr. Adequate writes: And we are in a particularly poor position to find out. If I had spent my whole life inside a large hollow tree, how much do you suppose I would know about the origin of trees? What could I know? In order to find that out I'd have to escape to the wider world in which trees are situated. If I supposed that they were built by something much like myself, this would be all very anthropomorphic, and a great sop to my vanity, but it would also be completely wrong. And if you showed me a tiny seed, I suspect that I would laugh at you ... but so it is, that's how it works. I won’t attempt to chop down this tree analogy, as I take great liberty with it in making a point. It actually quite strengthens my view. It is conceded here that the intention of your analogy may be viewed, in some sense, as a mark against theism. On closer examination, however, this is not necessarily the case. For this analogy to hold, the tree-universe must be at least observable from the inside. We could deduceperhaps over a vast amount of time and many generationsthat our tree-universe were expanding, decaying etc. Much like our real universe, we may be able to extrapolate from these known facts, among others, that our tree-universe had a beginning and that it is not future eternal. Perhaps the seed, which you have shown me, would be meaninglessan event horizon precluding my certainty. This, however, would be irrelevant to my inferring that this tree-universe had an absolute beginning, irrespective of the number of other tree-universes existing outside the purview of my knowledge. To posit a tree-multiverse at this point would be highly speculative, though in your analogy it would be true. It could just as easily be falsewe wouldn’t know. The tree-universe in which I found myself may be the only one. If more than one tree-universe existed, or even a tree-multiverse, this would in no way lessen the need to explain the tree-universe planter. Additionally, the tree-universe planter would be unknowablea point for agnosticismunless the tree-universe planter wished to poke a hole in the side of my tree-universe and reveal itself. Agent causation in the ultimate sense would be plausible in that case. Edited by Shimbabwe, : formatting error-squigglies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shimbabwe Member (Idle past 3891 days) Posts: 47 From: Murfreesboro, TN USA Joined: |
Percy writes: But everything has a cause, right? What causes virtual particles to flit into existence? At the expense of appearing petty, I will say no. Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause according to Kalam. I suppose the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument would address this issue, but that is not up for discussion. It is not within the purview of the KCA to do so. As to what causes virtual particles to flit into existence? I have virtually no idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3096 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
Considering your take on the issue of virtual particles;
Can you demonstrate something beginning to exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This, however, would be irrelevant to my inferring that this tree-universe had an absolute beginning, irrespective of the number of other tree-universes existing outside the purview of my knowledge. Perhaps you could, but this is hardly the point. The point is that here we sit, inside the universe, and having knowledge only of the sorts of things that are inside the universe with us. We have little basis, then, for knowing what might be outside; or even what kinds of things might be outside. The theists tell me that what is outside the universe is a kind of thing that is so like me that it is meaningful to say that I am made in the image of that thing, and that it is appropriate to refer to that thing in the masculine gender. But this is not clear. It might be something more like an acorn. Or a floozedrucket, or a snig. It's not clear that it even exists in the same way that things in the universe exists, or is a cause in the same sense that things in the universe are causes. Here we are, inside the tree. Can we conceive of an acorn? Can we conceive of the wonderful and diverse planet that the tree grows on? Can we conceive of the sun which that planet orbits, and of the vast galaxy in which that sun is set? No, we cannot. We can, however, conceive of the idea that the tree was built by a man who is like me except for being clever enough to build trees; but as it happens that idea has nothing to recommend it except that we can conceive of that, whereas we can't conceive of the truth, 'cos of being inside a tree. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Shimbabwe writes: Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause according to Kalam... Yes, that's fine.
As to what causes virtual particles to flit into existence? I have virtually no idea. Then isn't it possible that there is no cause to their existence, contradicting the first principle of the Kalam argument? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024