Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Kalam cosmological argument
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 76 of 177 (654788)
03-04-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
03-03-2012 2:57 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
Percy writes:
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.
Perhaps, but we need to be careful how we define both "causation" and "event". If you define "event" broadly enough to include a "state of being", I would agree.
Percy writes:
One billiard ball striking another billiard ball causes it to move.
Yes, but don't restrict causality only to classical physics. Quantum physics is also "causal" in he sense used by philosophers (and by the Kalaam argument, which is a philosophical argument).
Percy writes:
Phenomena like the Casimir effect, virtual particles and radioactive decay have no cause. Some things have a cause, some things don't.
--Percy
No, the decay of an atom of C-14 clearly has a cause. Its cause is the inherent instability of the atom, which guarantees that it will eventually decay. Or if you want to speak of "events" in the normal sense of the word, you could trace the cause of its decay back to its production by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. The event of a cosmic-ray-induced (n,p) reaction on an N-14 atom creates a C-14 atom which is sure to decay. We don't know when it will decay, but its decay certainly has a cause.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 03-03-2012 2:57 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 03-04-2012 1:23 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 77 of 177 (654792)
03-04-2012 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by kbertsche
03-04-2012 11:13 AM


Re: Reply to PAulK
kbertshe writes:
Perhaps, but we need to be careful how we define both "causation" and "event". If you define "event" broadly enough to include a "state of being", I would agree.
I'm not using any specialized terminology or trying to draw fine distinctions. I hope I'm just using the everyday meaning of words.
Using the wording from the opening post, Premise 2 of Syllogism 2, the Kalam Cosmological Argument assumes that "Everything that happens/starts has a cause." This isn't the only way to state this premise. Wikipedia gives both a classical formulation ("Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence") and a contemporary ("Whatever begins to exist must have an external cause").
People intuit this premise from observation, for example, of a pea plant or a volcano or a house being created. But all these observations are only of existing matter being reshaped and reorganized. No matter is actually being brought into existence. It's just existing matter being reconfigured. Nothing is actually being poofed into existence.
To elaborate, no one says, or at least no biologist says, that a pea plant is created because of the nature of seeds, earth and water. Biologists know to a fairly good level of detail the chain of cause and effect events that give rise to a pea pod.
And no one says, or at least no geologist says, that a volcano arises because of the nature of planets. Geologists know to a fairly good level of detail the chain of cause and effect events that give rise to a volcano.
And no one says, or at least no homebuilder says, that a house arises because of the nature of lumber and nails. Homebuilders know to an excellent level of detail the precise chain of cause and effect events that give rise to a house.
You cannot begin with examples of creation that come about through the mere movement of matter around into different shapes and combinations to extrapolate to the creation of matter itself in the form of atomic particles. There is no proximal cause of atomic decay that we know of. Saying that it is the nature of some atomic nuclei to decay is just another way of saying you don't know why a particular atomic nuclei decayed when it did. The Contemporary form of the Kalam argument uses the term "external cause", and there is certainly no "external cause" for atomic decay.
The same is true of virtual particles. Saying they are caused by the nature of space/time is a non-answer, and there is certainly no "external cause."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by kbertsche, posted 03-04-2012 11:13 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-04-2012 11:44 PM Percy has replied
 Message 80 by kbertsche, posted 03-05-2012 12:06 AM Percy has replied

  
Shimbabwe
Member (Idle past 3870 days)
Posts: 47
From: Murfreesboro, TN USA
Joined: 09-11-2003


Message 78 of 177 (654827)
03-04-2012 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
03-03-2012 4:57 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
PaulK writes:
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 ?
I would say no. Something that has always existed is beginningless by definition and would require neither a cause nor an explanation of its existence on the Kalam argument. Nevertheless, I agree that this argumentas is the case with any philosophical proposalis intuitive as such and relies on a number of presuppositions. It is, nevertheless, rooted in the metaphysical principle that something cannot come from nothing. This intuition is continually reinforced by our experience, and seems quite reliable. Simply asserting that the argument is intuitive does not lead to the conclusion that the first premiss is false. As a matter of fact, intuition plays a necessary role in apprehending any and all propositional truths.
I agree with you that there was not a time when nothing existed. If timecosmological time as it werebegan to exist, simultaneous with, as a constituent of, and in relation to, all reality; then your assessment is in fact correct. We may, though, infer that at T-0 there was an absolute beginning of the universe; and this accords with the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem, irrespective of the physical description of the universe or of the space-time boundary.
As to your assertion that the premiss is equivocal, I disagree. The first premiss does not commit the fallacy of equivocation since begins to exist may be defined univocally in the following manner; X begins to exist at T, if and only if X exists at T, and X does not exist at any time prior to T.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2012 4:57 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2012 1:37 AM Shimbabwe has replied
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-12-2012 4:30 AM Shimbabwe has not replied

  
Shimbabwe
Member (Idle past 3870 days)
Posts: 47
From: Murfreesboro, TN USA
Joined: 09-11-2003


Message 79 of 177 (654828)
03-04-2012 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
03-04-2012 1:23 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
Percy writes:
You cannot begin with examples of creation that come about through the mere movement of matter around into different shapes and combinations to extrapolate to the creation of matter itself in the form of atomic particles. There is no proximal cause of atomic decay that we know of. Saying that it is the nature of some atomic nuclei to decay is just another way of saying you don't know why a particular atomic nuclei decayed when it did. The Contemporary form of the Kalam argument uses the term "external cause", and there is certainly no "external cause" for atomic decay.
One need not explain the mechanism(s) of a cause to infer a cause. Else there would be, of necessity, an infinite regress of explanations. Moreover this objection begs the question in favor of materialism. Even if one grants that virtual particles move about indeterminately without a cause, or that radioactive decay occurs without a causeI’m not saying they doneither of these facts constitutes a defeater of the first premiss of Kalam. The theist is perfectly comfortable with the idea that some events are (yet) unexplained. Moreover these events are always relational to some pre-existing state, e.g a sea of fluctuating energy on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 03-04-2012 1:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 03-05-2012 8:52 AM Shimbabwe has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 80 of 177 (654830)
03-05-2012 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
03-04-2012 1:23 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
quote:
You cannot begin with examples of creation that come about through the mere movement of matter around into different shapes and combinations to extrapolate to the creation of matter itself in the form of atomic particles. There is no proximal cause of atomic decay that we know of. Saying that it is the nature of some atomic nuclei to decay is just another way of saying you don't know why a particular atomic nuclei decayed when it did. The Contemporary form of the Kalam argument uses the term "external cause", and there is certainly no "external cause" for atomic decay.
If you create an unstable physical situation, it will settle to a more stable situation. It doesn't matter whether the situation is a ball placed on a slope or creation of an unstable nucleus; the principle is the same. And it doesn't matter how quickly or slowly it settles to a more stable situation. The cause of its eventual change is that it was placed into an unstable situation to begin with.
One can attribute the cause of radioactive decay to the creation of the unstable nucleus in the first place. This is conceptually no different than saying the cause of a ball rolling down a slope is that it was placed in an unstable position.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 03-04-2012 1:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 03-05-2012 8:59 AM kbertsche has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 81 of 177 (654834)
03-05-2012 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Shimbabwe
03-04-2012 11:30 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
quote:
I would say no. Something that has always existed is beginningless by definition and would require neither a cause nor an explanation of its existence on the Kalam argument.
The Kalam argument clearly disagrees since it both insists that our universe has always existed in precisely the sense I used AND that our universe requires a cause.
quote:
Nevertheless, I agree that this argumentas is the case with any philosophical proposalis intuitive as such and relies on a number of presuppositions. It is, nevertheless, rooted in the metaphysical principle that something cannot come from nothing.
But, of course, this principle is only applicable to something which comes into existence. According to the Kalam argument there never was a time when our universe did not exist, and therefore our universe did not come into existence. Which clearly illustrates my point - an intuitive idea is being extended into a situation where it very likely does not apply.
quote:
Simply asserting that the argument is intuitive does not lead to the conclusion that the first premiss is false. As a matter of fact, intuition plays a necessary role in apprehending any and all propositional truths.
The point is that intuition is inferior to understanding and may lead us to false conclusions - and very likely will do in situations that are radically different from our normal experience in ways that are directly relevant to the question at hand. Let us also note that the "gambler's fallacy" is a perfectly intuitive idea - but it is wrong, even in ordinary experience. A proper understanding of probability saves us from that error.
quote:
I agree with you that there was not a time when nothing existed. If timecosmological time as it werebegan to exist, simultaneous with, as a constituent of, and in relation to, all reality; then your assessment is in fact correct. We may, though, infer that at T-0 there was an absolute beginning of the universe; and this accords with the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem, irrespective of the physical description of the universe or of the space-time boundary.
Which again illustrates the problem. You apparently take the view that our universe has a beginning but does not require a cause, rejecting the very premise we are discussing. But you could also have argues for a different idea of a beginning - one that rules other the specific case we are discussing - and retained the premise. Which goes back to my point that the idea of "beginning" as it appears in the Kalam argument is poorly defined.
quote:
As to your assertion that the premiss is equivocal, I disagree. The first premiss does not commit the fallacy of equivocation since begins to exist may be defined univocally in the following manner; X begins to exist at T, if and only if X exists at T, and X does not exist at any time prior to T.
Obviously simply saying that YOU can define"beginning" does not mean that the Kalam argument itself contains a clear definition. Nor does it mean that the definition you offer is the one that the Kalam argument uses - and in fact it cannot be.
According to your definition, given a finite past anything that exists at T=0 has a beginning, as does anything which comes into existence later. Thus the premise "everything that has a beginning has a cause" becomes "anything that exists has a cause" (assuming a finite past). This contradicts both the Kalam argument and your own statement in your first paragraph. So I must thank you again for illustrating my point so clearly. If "beginning" was well-defined in the Kalam argument this level of confusion would simply not be possible.
ABE: Try this alternative definition. A thing has a beginning if it exists at time T, and there is a prior time T' when it does not exist.
Can you give any reason for thinking that this definition is any less accurate than yours ?
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-04-2012 11:30 PM Shimbabwe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-11-2012 9:06 PM PaulK has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 82 of 177 (654870)
03-05-2012 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Shimbabwe
03-04-2012 11:44 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
Shimbabwe writes:
Even if one grants that virtual particles move about indeterminately without a cause, or that radioactive decay occurs without a causeI’m not saying they doneither of these facts constitutes a defeater of the first premiss of Kalam.
Isn't the first premise of Kalam, "Whatever begins to exist must have an external cause?" So wouldn't virtual particles or radioactive decay having no cause contradict the first premise of Kalam?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-04-2012 11:44 PM Shimbabwe has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 83 of 177 (654871)
03-05-2012 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by kbertsche
03-05-2012 12:06 AM


Re: Reply to PAulK
Hi KBertsche,
You seem to be assigning the label "cause" indiscriminately. Instability is now a cause? The vacuum is a cause? Nothingness is a cause?
Anyway, if nothingness can be a cause of the universe, then I'm fine with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by kbertsche, posted 03-05-2012 12:06 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Theodoric, posted 03-05-2012 9:36 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 85 by kbertsche, posted 03-05-2012 9:58 AM Percy has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 84 of 177 (654874)
03-05-2012 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
03-05-2012 8:59 AM


Re: Reply to PAulK
Anyway, if nothingness can be a cause of the universe, then I'm fine with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
I agree.
This would would make it absolutely meaningless and point out the word salad that it truly is.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 03-05-2012 8:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 85 of 177 (654876)
03-05-2012 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
03-05-2012 8:59 AM


Re: Reply to PAulK
Percy writes:
Hi KBertsche,
You seem to be assigning the label "cause" indiscriminately. Instability is now a cause? The vacuum is a cause? Nothingness is a cause?
Anyway, if nothingness can be a cause of the universe, then I'm fine with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
--Percy
I don't believe I'm assigning the label indiscriminately. My point is that if we are discussing a philosophical claim (which Kalaam is) we need careful philosophical definitions of our terms. In particular, we must not mix terminology from common usage, physics usage, and philosophical usage together. Doing so leads to a disingenuous "bait and switch" tactic based on different word meanings in different fields. The claim that you and Victor Stenger make about radioactive decay being "non-causal" is a prime example of this. It may be "non-predictive", but it certainly has a "cause" (in the philosophical sense)!
If you look at Causality in wikipedia, you'll see your basic definition (one event leading to another event), but also this important qualifier:
Wikipedia writes:
Though the causes and effects are typically related to changes or events, candidates include objects, processes, properties, variables, facts, and states of affairs; characterizing the causal relationship can be the subject of much debate.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 03-05-2012 8:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 03-05-2012 10:44 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2012 12:24 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 86 of 177 (654883)
03-05-2012 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by kbertsche
03-05-2012 9:58 AM


Re: Reply to PAulK
Hi KBertsche,
What you say makes sense, and Kalam is fine by me as a philosophical claim. I only have a problem with claims that it tells us something scientifically true about the origin of the universe.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by kbertsche, posted 03-05-2012 9:58 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 87 of 177 (654905)
03-05-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by kbertsche
03-05-2012 9:58 AM


Re: Reply to PAulK
quote:
My point is that if we are discussing a philosophical claim (which Kalaam is) we need careful philosophical definitions of our terms.
I'm glad that you've come to realise that. It's a major failing of the Kalam argument that it avoids giving careful definitions of it's terms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by kbertsche, posted 03-05-2012 9:58 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 88 of 177 (654907)
03-05-2012 12:38 PM


Good subtitles please
I can use the built in functionality of this board in order to determine who a given post is a reply to.
Can we try to employ some subtitles that actually reflect the content of the argument?
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 03-06-2012 8:43 AM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 89 of 177 (654982)
03-06-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by AdminModulous
03-05-2012 12:38 PM


Re: Good subtitles please
The thread's originator is the one who kept titling his messages "Reply to So-and-so", and my recollection is that when it was explained that the board does this for you he responded that he did this at other boards and was going to continue doing it. He's gone now, so if we start using normal message titles it shouldn't be a problem anymore.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by AdminModulous, posted 03-05-2012 12:38 PM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Shimbabwe
Member (Idle past 3870 days)
Posts: 47
From: Murfreesboro, TN USA
Joined: 09-11-2003


Message 90 of 177 (655613)
03-11-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
03-05-2012 1:37 AM


Reply to PAulK
PaulK writes:
The Kalam argument clearly disagrees since it both insists that our universe has always existed in precisely the sense I used AND that our universe requires a cause.
I don’t think this is true at all, or else the second premiss of the KCA would refute the first premiss. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
PaulK writes:
But, of course, this principle is only applicable to something which comes into existence. According to the Kalam argument there never was a time when our universe did not exist, and therefore our universe did not come into existence. Which clearly illustrates my point - an intuitive idea is being extended into a situation where it very likely does not apply.
Intuitive it may be; but, please don’t misconstrue the argument. We’re only discussing premiss one here; however, I must list premiss two and the conclusion in order to make my point. Even on a liberal reading of the premisses, it would be difficult to reconcile your assertions above with the Kalam Argument.
1. Every being which begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
2. The universe is a being which began to exist
I do agree that the premiss is only applicable to things that begin to exist. Premiss one is quite clear on that. With all due respect however, your assertion that the Kalam implies BOTH AND seems incorrect in light of the fact that the argument explicitly states; the universe began to existin premiss 2. How could it then explicate the converse? It would obviously be self-refuting.
PaulK writes:
The point is that intuition is inferior to understanding and may lead us to false conclusions - and very likely will do in situations that are radically different from our normal experience in ways that are directly relevant to the question at hand. Let us also note that the "gambler's fallacy" is a perfectly intuitive idea - but it is wrong, even in ordinary experience. A proper understanding of probability saves us from that error.
I suppose this is true if the relevant parameters are accessible; if not, intuitionhowever unreliable on your view may be the only way to attain some understanding of the data in question. Of course, empirically verifiable facts are preferred whenever possible. This fact in no way depreciates the employment of intuitive inferences. I have no way to prove I am a self, yet I have good reasons to infer it.
PaulK writes:
Which again illustrates the problem. You apparently take the view that our universe has a beginning but does not require a cause, rejecting the very premise we are discussing. But you could also have argues for a different idea of a beginning - one that rules other the specific case we are discussing - and retained the premise. Which goes back to my point that the idea of "beginning" as it appears in the Kalam argument is poorly defined.
It simply does not follow from my statements that the universe came to exist without a cause. I merely stated that there was no TIMEin the temporally prior sensebefore the universe. This in no way excludes a causallyor on your words, logicallyprior entity. I qualified the statement so as to be clear.
I understand, on your construal of the premiss, anything that could bring the universe into existence is simply defined away. It seems to me that your interpretationeven if logically soundcould be problematic. It is in fact based on your intuition that no causally prior entity exists.
PaulK writes:
Obviously simply saying that YOU can define"beginning" does not mean that the Kalam argument itself contains a clear definition. Nor does it mean that the definition you offer is the one that the Kalam argument uses - and in fact it cannot be.
I think this definition comports with a standard usage of begins to exist. The Kalam may well imply the same. I see no reason why it can’t. The definition is not a sophisticated one that would be foreign to anyone who is capable of discussing the KCA.
PaulK writes:
According to your definition, given a finite past anything that exists at T=0 has a beginning, as does anything which comes into existence later. Thus the premise "everything that has a beginning has a cause" becomes "anything that exists has a cause" (assuming a finite past).
This again does not follow. Neither the definition nor I affirm that anything that exists has a cause. In fact, if something could exist, without time, causally prior to the universe, as the Kalam implicitly affirms, it would not require a cause.
PaulK writes:
This contradicts both the Kalam argument and your own statement in your first paragraph. So I must thank you again for illustrating my point so clearly. If "beginning" was well-defined in the Kalam argument this level of confusion would simply not be possible.
In that case, you’re quite welcome. I think you may well be illustrating my pointby taking a position at all on the Kalam. If the argument were self-refuting, it would be quite obvious, and there would be little need for discussion.
PaulK writes:
ABE: Try this alternative definition. A thing has a beginning if it exists at time T, and there is a prior time T' when it does not exist.
Can you give any reason for thinking that this definition is any less accurate than yours ?
Absolutely, I can. Aside from the fact that it lends itself to special pleading for the universe; and, it may be question begging in favor of naturalism, which are very good reasons, I reject it on theological grounds, in that it precludes any entity that could conceivably exist without time. You may wish to show that such an entity does not exist; but, defining it away isn’t quite reasonable. Moreover, numbers and (other) abstract entities would necessarily be excluded on your definition. Therefore, it would be quite troublesome to many philosophers and theologians, and especially mathematicians. I suppose the mention of Platonism here, is beating a dead horsebut I digress. Obviously popular appeal does not make one definition better than anotheryours is logically sound as far as I can tell. Nevertheless, I think your definition is inferior to the one previously stated.
Edited by Shimbabwe, : squigglies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2012 1:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 03-12-2012 3:26 AM Shimbabwe has not replied
 Message 93 by Pressie, posted 03-12-2012 8:11 AM Shimbabwe has not replied
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-12-2012 4:23 PM Shimbabwe has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024