Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Kalam cosmological argument
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 177 (575159)
08-19-2010 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuimshaan
08-18-2010 8:10 PM


It is generally accepted the theory means this:
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuimshaan, posted 08-18-2010 8:10 PM Nuimshaan has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 25 of 177 (575182)
08-19-2010 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Deleted
08-13-2010 5:47 AM


Syllogism 1
Premise 1: Entropy always grows (second law of thermodynamics)
Premise 2: The universe has not reached total entropy.
Conclusion :The universe has started/has not excisted for an infinite amount of time.
There are a couple of flaws in this.
One is that the 2LoT does not say that the entropy of a closed system always increases, but that it never decreases. One could then imagine a situation in which the entropy has stayed the same for an infinite amount of time.
The other is that the math is broken even if the premise was correct. Imagine a quantity (call it x) such that x increased by a quantity of 1 today, 1/2 yesterday, 1/4 the day before that, 1/8 the day before that, and so forth. Now, x is strictly monotonically increasing, and yet clearly if x has been increasing for an infinite number of days, the present value of x would only have increased by 2 over all that time.
One moral of this is that two premises and a conclusion do not make a syllogism. In this case, the conclusion is simply not a necessary consequence of the premises. There is a hidden premise --- that if something always grows, and if it has been doing so for an infinitely long time, then it will have "reached totality" (whatever that means). And this hidden premise is, as I have demonstrated, false in general, since the behavior of x supplies a counterexample.
Of course, there does exist a good argument that our universe (as cosmologists would use the term) has only existed for a finite time, but as this involves knowing the actual history of the Universe, it would be hard to sell it to the sort of people who are attracted to the KCA, i.e. creationists. They are therefore obliged to used bad reasons to argue for what scientists can prove using good reasons.
---
Syllogism 2 is a valid syllogism but the premises are open to question.
---
"Syllogism 3" just isn't a syllogism. It's a non sequitur --- the term "first cause" doesn't even occur in the premises. As with "syllogism 1", someone is aping the superficial forms of logic without actually using it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Deleted, posted 08-13-2010 5:47 AM Deleted has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 30 of 177 (575675)
08-20-2010 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Deleted
08-20-2010 6:14 PM


Dr Adequate, you are correct there could be a time at which the entropy stays the same, but I guess the chances for that arent very good?
Since we have only studied one universe, and that universe apparently has only existed for a finite time, thinking about this is rather like trying to think about the probability that a dragon could talk.
---
As for the argument as a whole, it seems to me that they run the risk arguing rather like this:
Proposition 1: Every point on the globe has a point to the north of it.
Proposition 2: There is no point on the globe which is north of the north pole.
Conclusion: The point to the north of the north pole is not on the globe.
The analogy here is that just as "north" only makes sense on the surface of the globe, so ideas of beginning and causality only seem to make sense inside spacetime.
"Point to the north of it" has to mean "point to the north of it on the globe", and so the first two propositions are implicitly contradictory.
Now consider the proposition that the universe has "started". What we mean when we say something has started is that there was a time when it didn't exist/happen and then a time that it did. But this only makes sense within time --- the idea of spacetime itself starting is confusing, because it implies a time when there wasn't any time.
---
Similarly with "cause": a cause precedes its effect, so when one talks of spacetime itself having a cause this seems to imply something preceding time in time.
Though this is less clear. Consider an eternal universe which always has and always will consist of a single planet on which a bowling ball sits on a cushion. One might then reasonably say that the cause of the cushion being depressed is that the bowling ball is sitting on it, without implying a cause preceding the effect ...
... I just remembered why I like biology better than metaphysics.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Deleted, posted 08-20-2010 6:14 PM Deleted has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 177 (653844)
02-24-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Shimbabwe
02-24-2012 6:45 PM


Re: Reply to cavediver and nwr
The being is timeless without the universe and temporal with the creation of the universe. An infinite cause with a finite effect cannot be the result of event/event causation or state/state causation. Therefore it must be personal!
You need some reasoning before the word "therefore".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-24-2012 6:45 PM Shimbabwe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-25-2012 5:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 47 of 177 (654087)
02-26-2012 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Shimbabwe
02-25-2012 5:58 PM


Re: Reply to cavediver and nwr
Thank you for your response. I was merely presenting an outline for the argument as proposed by Dr. Craig et al. The theist in this context would, nevertheless, assert that there are three primary types of causation, state, event, or agentsome would argue only two. By default agent causation is the only viable candidate ...
There's no reason why an agent should be exempt from any reasoning that one might apply to states or events. In fact, anyone not wishing to split unsplittable hairs might use the term "thing" to include the whole lot of 'em.
I don't see why the mere property of intelligence, when added to a thing, allows it to transcend logic. It takes more than being smart to manage that.
By default agent causation is the only viable candidate for the theist ...
Because the theist believes in the existence of an "agent" who is an uncaused cause, but not a "state" or "event". Way to assume the thing to be proved.
... because the other alternatives would necessarily introduce an infinite regress of events or an eternal universe, both of which are untenable according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
You really shouldn't use the words: "according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument" when the correctness of that argument is the very thing you're trying to justify.
Moreover, the only other entities (I am aware of) that qualify as beginningless, timeless, and immaterial, are numbers or abstract objects.
You're not "aware of" this "agent", either. You're trying to infer it. You can't go: "God is the only thing I know of that could create the universe, the universe exists, therefore God created it, therefore I know that there is a God."
Starting with a blank slate and no theological presuppositions, we don't know what caused the universe, therefore ... we don't know what caused the universe. That's about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-25-2012 5:58 PM Shimbabwe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-27-2012 6:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 177 (654207)
02-27-2012 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Shimbabwe
02-27-2012 6:29 PM


Re: Reply to cavediver and nwr
An agentwhom I reckon as a thing, of courseneed not be exempt from reasoning. The difference is that it may act volitionally. This capability is necessary if the being is to perform creative act(s).
But not causative ones.
Granted your assertion about states or events may be trueI’m not sure about that. I would argue that no events occurred before the universe. It is also plausible that no physical state of affairs exists outside the universe; whereas an immaterial entitythat exists timelessly without the universe in an undifferentiated statemay will to create time and matter and space etc.
Alternatively the reverse is also plausible --- that the "state of affairs" exists but the "entity" that "wills" does not.
I don’t think I am asserting that this being transcends logic as this proposition appears unintelligible.
What I meant was that any argument against a thing causing the universe is not escaped by a thing that thinks.
The reasoning here is not circular in my opinion. The agent is the least arbitrary stopping point in what would be an infinite regress of causes.
Why?
Moreover, I think inference to the best explanation is wholly justified in the absence of some defeater. The argument need not demonstrate absolute proof, but need only be more plausible than its negation.
I think it needs to be more plausible than saying: "we don't know".
I respect your agnosticism on this subject; it would be my default position if I were not convinced of theism.
Well in that case the KCA isn't much use, is it? If you have to be convinced of theism before you find it plausible, then since the purpose of it is to make theism plausible, it doesn't do the job it's meant to do.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-27-2012 6:29 PM Shimbabwe has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 177 (654524)
03-02-2012 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Shimbabwe
02-29-2012 7:28 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-29-2012 7:28 PM Shimbabwe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-03-2012 9:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 177 (654750)
03-03-2012 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Shimbabwe
03-03-2012 10:37 AM


Weasel Words
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-03-2012 10:37 AM Shimbabwe has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 177 (654771)
03-04-2012 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Shimbabwe
03-03-2012 9:28 PM


From Inside The Tree
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-03-2012 9:28 PM Shimbabwe has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 92 of 177 (655624)
03-12-2012 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Shimbabwe
03-04-2012 11:30 PM


Beginnings
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.
I think there is some equivocation, though it is subtle.
Roughly speaking:
* You wish to say that a thing x began to have property P iff P(x) at time t, and there is no time t' < t at which P(x).
* Paul wishes to say that a thing x began to have property P iff P(x) at time t, and there is a time t' < t at which ~P(x).
I could formalize that better, but that'll do for now.
Now, the trouble is that the claim that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is supposed to be empirical. But all the data we have relate only to things that begin to exist in Paul's sense --- we have no data on anything that began to exist in your sense but not in Paul's.
So there seems to be some equivocation here. Our only reason for taking (1) as a premise is exclusively as a result of observing Paulesque beginnings of things. But then you want to use this to draw conclusions about non-Paulesque beginnings of things. But I don't see that we have any warrant to do so given that none of our data is about "beginnings" in this sense.
---
Suppose one man defines an equid as a member of the genus Equus, while another defines it as any horse-shaped animal, with whatever evolutionary history, living on any planet.
The first man is entitled to say that all known equids can digest cellulose, and is empirically on good ground if he wants to deduce that as-yet undiscovered equids (if there are any) will also have this property. The second man can also say that all known equids can digest cellulose, but he is on much shakier ground if he wants to derive the same conclusion about equids in his sense, since all the equids forming his data set are equids in the first and narrower sense. Does he really have warrant to draw the conclusion that all equids (in the second sense) can digest cellulose, based on data exclusively about equids in the first sense?
Both men are reasoning from a data set consisting of all the equids (in their respective senses) that anyone has ever been able to study, and yet the second man is much less well-justified in his deduction.
This is not a perfect analogy, with time I might come up with a better one, but I think it illustrates the sort of problem you're running into.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-04-2012 11:30 PM Shimbabwe has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 115 of 177 (655915)
03-14-2012 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by kbertsche
03-14-2012 10:56 AM


Re: Always existing.
False. I have repeated my words twice. Please go back and re-read them.
You and PaulK are arguing at cross-purposes. When Paul says that the universe has always existed, he doesn't mean that the universe has existed for an infinite period of time, but that it has existed for all time, i.e. there was never a time when the universe didn't exist. Now this is in fact implied by a cosmological model model in which the universe starts at T=0 and there is no time before T=0. Your statements therefore do imply that the universe has always existed in the sense in which PaulK is using that phrase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2012 10:56 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2012 7:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 125 of 177 (656028)
03-15-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by New Cat's Eye
03-15-2012 5:21 PM


Sure, but that's just denying one of the premises of the argument. Which is fine, you can reject it on that bases... but if we're discussing the argument, itself, then we should stick to the premises.
No, it's fair enough to attack an argument on the grounds that its premises are untrue or unproven. Indeed, this is the most usual thing that's wrong with arguments. Subtle logical fallacies are actually fairly rare as opposed to the more common problem that the premises were extracted from their proponent's nether orifice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2012 5:21 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 134 of 177 (656095)
03-16-2012 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by kbertsche
03-16-2012 9:58 AM


Re: Always existing.
The God of the Bible is a transcendent being, with no beginning and with infinite age.
Paul's right. You can't say that God has infinite age unless past time is infinite. Moreover, under this formulation you'd have to say that time itself was not something that God created but something that exists independent of him. Finally, you'd run into the principle of sufficient reason. If God existed for an infinite amount of time and then decided to create the universe, why did he decide to create it then and not five minutes earlier or six trillion years later? If prior to that there had been a changeless god sitting about for an infinite amount of time and not creating the universe, then there would be no motive for him to create it at any given point in time.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by kbertsche, posted 03-16-2012 9:58 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 140 of 177 (656211)
03-16-2012 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Shimbabwe
03-16-2012 8:58 PM


Re: Objections to premiss one
I just don’t think the objection is as strong as you would like to believe, or the argument would certainly be dead in the water.
Well, perhaps it is dead in the water, and Paul and I are the philosophical equivalent of the neighborhood boys poking the body with a stick.
I am stating that a beginningless entity need not have an explanationor else one starts on the slippery slope of explaining the explanation ad infinitum.
Well, a couple of points. Firstly, there is no logical reason why we should not get onto that slippery slope. There is a theological reason --- theists don't like that sort of talk. For them it's a slippery slope, for someone who looks at it dispassionately it's not a problem.
Second, there's no logical reason why looking one step back before the creator of the universe should lead us to an infinite chain. We can conceive of a situation where Fred created the universe, Bob created Fred, and Bob is the "ultimate causal entity". Again, why not? If we can look one step behind the universe, then we can at least consider that there's something one step behind that.
As a non physicist, I think mathematically constructed parallel universes are incredibly far-fetched, primarily because they don’t appeal to me.
Well, that's not an argument.
If one premiss is false, then the argument’s conclusion is obviously false.
Nuh-uh.
Premise 1: I am Penn Gilette.
Premise 2: Penn Gilette lives in Las Vegas.
Conclusion: I live in Las Vegas.
Premise 1 is false. The conclusion is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-16-2012 8:58 PM Shimbabwe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-17-2012 1:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 148 of 177 (656292)
03-17-2012 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Shimbabwe
03-17-2012 1:36 PM


Slippery Slope
Perhaps this is true. As a theist, my bias has not been hidden. Nevertheless, the point remains.
Nevertheless, it doesn't. If there's no logical reason to stay off the slippery slope, then we might as well get on it and slide all the way down shouting "wheeeeeeeeeee!"
The argument is just not advanced in any meaningful way. There really would be no point in stepping back multiple times until we reached the ultimate cause. I think we can agree on that, even if 50 steps were necessary.
Well, if there was an ultimate cause and it was fifty steps back, wouldn't we still want to know about it? But even if, as a matter of personal preference, you wouldn't want to go back that far, it is still the case that it is legitimate to inquire into what caused the cause of the universe, even if for some reason you didn't want to. I'd want to; and what I would need is some valid argument why there is some particular place where I should stop and say: "But this thing doesn't require a cause."
You should have been here for my thread on: "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing", but it was nearly over when you joined the forum.
In your case the argument is valid, but it is based on a false premiss, which is indeed difficult to argue against in the absence of more facts; nevertheless, one could expose your sleight of hand ...
I can't do sleight of hand. You must be confusing me with Penn Jillette.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-17-2012 1:36 PM Shimbabwe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-18-2012 10:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024