|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Why do I have to answer "no" ? I'm not making any definite claim on the matter. If anything, you have to answer "no" because otherwise you contradict your own claim that God is infinitely old.
quote: Actually I think that the problem is that YOU are inferring too much, or rather the Kalam argument is. According to the Kalam argument something that begins to exist must have a cause. So, what you need to explain is what you mean by "begin to exist", tell us if you claim that anything which "begin to exist" in the sense you employ needs a cause - and if it does require a cause explain why it requires a cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In my case it is now clear that YOU want to infer more from the phrase than I believe is valid. YOU wish to infer a requirement for a cause (assuming that you are being honest about it). But you aren't prepared to offer any reason why something that has always existed requires a cause. But then again maybe you aren't being honest, and the only point of the phrase is an attempt to obscure the fact that we are speaking of something that - according to the Kalam argument - has always existed. Certainly you are offering nothing more at this stage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Since "have a finite age" is the only one of the two to have a clear meaning at this stage I will use that. Now, according to the Kalam argument past time is finite, so everything has a finite age. This means that everything that exists has "begun to exist" by your meaning - and therefore that according to the Kalam argument everything that exists must have a cause. But clearly this isn't your position, Therefore either you are opposed to the Kalam argument or this is NOT what you mean by "begins to exist". So yet again, we see that supporters of the Kalam argument cannot let themselves understand the issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I can assure you that you are wrong on this point. Craig comes up with his own definition of "beginning" (which has other problems but not the ones of your preferred definition). Indeed, his own arguments for a finite past would contradict an assumption of infinite age for anything, so obviously he is not using your definition, because he would see the problem.
quote: Nothing existed before the first moment of time (because there is no "before the first moment of time"), thus with the Kalam argument's assumption of a past finite time EVERYTHING "began to exist" (as you define it) at T=o or later.
quote: Only if you assume an infinite past. Which contradicts the Kalam argument. If past time is finite, nothing can have existed for any longer than that.
quote: Under the assumptions and definitions that we are dealing with the Universe has always existed and God "began to exist"... I am sorry that you can't let yourself see the contradiction.
quote: Of course not, that's the point, You are blatantly contradicting yourself and you can't let yourself see it. You can't just assume that past time is both finite and infinite depending on whether it is convenient to you - not if you are hoping to make anything like a rational argument. But you still do it, and you can't even see it, staring you in the face.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Calling God "transcendant" doesn't give you license for self-contradiction. And the contradiction is really obvious. The age of a thing - any thing - is the amount of time it has existed for. Infinite age is only possible if time is infinite. But the Kalam argument insists that time is finite - in fact it includes a sub-argument that (if it works at all) rules out the possibility of infinite age.
quote: So you're saying that the Kalam argument is wrong and time is infinite ? Is that your final word ?
quote: That's because you left it out. You can't sweep the contradiction under thee carpet just by ignoring it, though. You are defending an argument that expressly and intentionally rules out the possibility of an infinite past (in the sense that it denies it, not that it successfully disproves it). So how is it possible for anything to be infinitely old unless the Kalam argument is wrong on that point ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: More correctly, we have seen an examination of the Kalam argument which SHOWS that given the assumptions of the argument, the universe has always existed. The Kalam argument denies that there ever was a time when the universe did not exist therefore according to the Kalam argument the universe has always existed. Sadly supporters of the Kalam argument have great difficulty coming to grips with this simple fact. And I think it is not going too far to say that their inability is due to the fact that this point poses a serious problem for the Kalam argument that they cannot address.
quote: Of course this is NOT analogous. It is not analogous because there was a time BEFORE your consciousness existed. Your consciosuness has NOT existed for all time.
quote: But this is not the objection that is being made. The objection is that since there is never a time when the universe did not exist, the universe has always existed. From this we question why the universe should require a cause. And you agreed that anything which existed at the first moment of time did NOT require a cause.
quote: Your strawman objection and your false analogy do nothing to diminish the strength of the actual objection. The real question before us is, given the assumption of the Kalam argument that the universe has always existed, did it have a beginning or "begin to exist" in a sense which requires a cause as the Kalam argument claims ? So far there has been no progress on demonstrating this at all. So at this point I believe that I can fairly say that the Kalam argument is dead, at least so far as the discussion here is concerned. The supporters of the argument have been unable to rationally defend it and by all the evidence they are incapable of doing so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: This is just obviously false, as I have already explained First, it is the Kalam argument that makes the claim, not I., Secondly the claim of the Kalam argument is that there never was a time when the universe did not exist - which is exactly the same as saying that the universe always existed. And THIS point is missing from your strawman.
quote: This is also false. In Message 78 you replied to my question:
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 ?
With:
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
So you explicitly stated that if there is never a time when a thing does not exist, it is beginningless and requires neither cause nor explanation.
quote: My point is that the the premises need to be discussed together to avoid equivocation and contradiction. We've seen enough of that already. Apologists have a slippery habit of taking points in isolation and producing answers that don't fit together - and that seems to be the approach you want to take. I'e said what is required to make the argument sound - at least on these issues. And it really is necessary. If you can't provide it, then the argument is dead, exactly as I said. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Let us be clear, my argument is not directly based on modern cosmology, it is simply repeating the claims made by the Kalam argument. And you have definitely referred to Craig far more often that Al Ghazali, and agreed with this point. So suddenly implying that you don't accept Craig's version and wish to discard this point seems to be a bit of a turnaround.
quote: If you are prepared to claim that there was a time prior to the existence of the universe, and hence lose Craig's argument that the cause of the universe must be timeless that is your choice. But certainly if you do so, that aspect of Craig's argument is dead. And you'd also have to take other cosmologies more seriously, when now you reject them apparently because you find them unfavourable to your views.
quote: Of course you contradict yourself here, because you stated that if the universe existed for all of time it would be beginningless and did not require an explanation.
quote: Again I think it bad to split the discussion up in this way because of the likelihood of equivocation. However, your own statement that if the universe had existed for all of time it would be beginningless itself would seem to deny premise 1. Unless you are willing to drop the assumption that there is no time prior to the universe, despite adamantly maintaining it up until now.
quote: My point is that the whole concept is being kept vague, and we really need - as Kbertsche says - more precision. If we had an agreed concept of "beginning" or "beginning to exist" - whichever you wish to use - THEN we might discuss the premises individually. But it seems that you can't agree even with yourself on the matter. This is really such a key consideration that I can't understand the reluctance to address it - assuming that we are having an honest, rational investigation of the argument.
quote: Well to call something far-fetched because it doesn't appeal to you is perhaps an expression of prejudice. And it is entirely separate from the use of equivocation . However, it is worth noting that other universes are a consequence of serious ideas in cosmology and are not simply invoked ad hoc to answer theistic arguments. But I will add that we cannot reasonably be expected to tell if a premise is false without understanding the meaning of it. And that is where we are right now. Indeed, even you are there right now.
quote: For the argument to be sound you need to show that the universe has a "beginning" or "begins to exist" in a way that requires a cause and which - if you are using Craig's version or keeping your own ideas about cosmology - must also be consistent with the idea that there is no time prior to the existence of our universe. Since you have earlier said that the latter concern renders the universe "beginningless' and leaves it with no requirement for a cause it seems rather clear that this is a problematic issue even for you.
quote: I have to say that the only development I see that looks at all promising from your perspective is the implication that you intend to argue that there WAS a time prior to our universe which would eliminate some of the problems - but that would also eliminate Craig's argument for a timeless cause and require you to change your views on cosmology, so even that course has problems for you. However, without such a change, you would seem to be stuck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I am surprised that you have suddenly decided to raise this objection after so much discussion in this thread and others. And I am even more surprised that you are unaware of this staple of Craig's version of the argument which is the main basis for insisting on a timeless cause of the universe. So are you now prepared to say whether you insist on a finite or infinite past instead of choosing whichever is convenient to you at the time ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Which only makes it even stranger that you should suddenly switch from talking about Craig to Al Ghazali. If there is no relevant difference, why the sudden switch ?
quote: I don't think so. It was you who suddenly decided to switch to Al Ghazali's argument instead of Craig's simply because it lacked that aspect of the argument. At the least it implies that your intended answer to the objection was to drop that part of Craig's argument altogether.
quote: Of course your opinion on the matter - prejudiced as it is - is completely beside the point. It remains true that you reject cosmologies which depict a time before the universe, so that if you accepted that to answer my objection it would cause problems for you in other aspects of your argument.
quote: Of course I have not done this even once. The fact remains that you stated that something that had existed for all of time was beginningless and required no cause. And that's what I said, and quoted you as saying.
quote: For a start you are NOT agreeing with me, I am simply accepting the point for the sake of argument and to show the problems it creates for the Kalam argument. And I don't see how anything wrong with pointing out that you explicitly agreed with me that a thing that has existed for all time it did not require a cause.
quote: I have not yet argued that the universe CANNOT have a cause, merely that it does not REQUIRE one. My point is to refute the Kalam argument, not construct an atheological argument from it's premises.
quote: When a thread has gone on for so long - and when at least one preceding thread also tried to tackle the issue - without clarification being provided I have to wonder about that.
quote: BUt this is part of my point against the argument. Bringing the beginning of time into things DOES confuse the issues, DOES call doubt on to the claims of the Kalam argument. But not doing so also brings problems to the Kalam argument. And this problem is exactly why I see your confidence in the Kalam argument as unfounded. You do not have a clear grasp of the issues.
quote: I would maintain that you accepted it as words, but without adequate comprehension. One who does not accept it as words, will wish to understand it before accepting it, and see the problems.
quote: For me, the main issue is avoiding deception. I see the Kalam argument - at least in Craig's version as primarily a deception which only appears superficially reasonable (Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument is even worse in this regard). And this is what motivates me to get the terms clearly defined. But I would say that the stakes are very high for you, too. You clearly have a huge regard for the Kalam argument and for it to be shown to be rationally indefensible would be a severe blow.
quote: The important part has not been adequately addressed even once:
For the argument to be sound you need to show that the universe has a "beginning" or "begins to exist" in a way that requires a cause and which - if you are using Craig's version or keeping your own ideas about cosmology - must also be consistent with the idea that there is no time prior to the existence of our universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Which really suggests that you should have been talking about Al Ghazali since the beginning instead of consistently referring to Craig instead... So no, it doesn't explain the switch.
quote: But isn't the difference the transition between NOT riding a bicycle and riding a bicycle ? If the universe already exists from the very start there is no transition between not-existing and existing.
quote: I don't see why. I certainly haven't focussed on Craig as a person.
quote: Look, I know that you're prejudiced against those other cosmologies and you can't be bothered to understand the reasons for proposing them, so can you please stop wasting time on the subject ? Let's just take it as read that you aren't going to be proposing a time before our universe existed and keep on track.
quote: By my understanding all of them postulate a time outside of our universe, and this is a big problem for Craig's version of the Kalam argument. Craig wishes the cause of our universe to be timeless and he can only get that by denying the existence of any time where that cause could operate.
quote: I don't. I say that you EXPLICITLY stated it, and I have quoted you to prove it.
quote: I see no evidence that we are using "time" in a different sense. I haven't rejected the possibility of timeless entities (although I dare say that I have though about them a good deal more than you have). And this has nothing to do with the point you were supposedly responding to. Communicating with you is very difficult when you can't remember what you said, have difficulty following context and come up with bizarre misreadings like the above. And your "note" explicitly contradicts your own earlier statement. Why say something that you disagree with ?
quote: And yet you agreed with the point when it was stated without explicitly mentioning the universe. And you have given no reason to think otherwise... If something has existed for all of time, why would it require a cause of its existence ?
quote: If we do not understand the concept of "beginning to exist" well enough to describe it - and given your own confusion about it - how can we trust the Kalam argument, which rests on that understanding ? And how can I know that my understanding of the argument is the same as yours ? But really I think the biggest problem is not the difficulty of the subject but finding a definition which allows the Kalam argument to work. Yet another sign of the argument's problems.
quote: However, in this case, words are not the issue....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: OK, you don't want to explain why you suddenly went from talking only about Craig to insisting that you preferred Al Ghazali.
quote: And that difference is why your alleged analogy fails.
quote: In fact that's not true. You hold that the universe has always existed AND began a long time ago.
quote: You're still contradicting your own statement unless the reference to "its own cosmological time" means that you are bringing in some other time - but that WOULD contradict Craig.
quote: It's problematic for Craig's argument for reasons that I have already given. Now you claim that Craig ASSUMES timelessness, but this is not the same thing as arguing for it at all. And in fact looking further down we see that what you say is completely untrue.
quote: How so ? Given finite time "existing forever" would seem best interpreted as "always existing" - meaning of course, that there never is a time when it does not exist. I don't see any need of an infinite regress in that case and you don't offer any argument for one,
quote: Perhaps you should introduce the dilemma before claiming to have a solution.
quote: So much for the idea that time outside the universe is not unproblematic for your argument. And really that's the only significant thing in your final argument. You still haven't got to the point of establishing that our universe requires a cause. In fact, I must remind you that it seemed obvious to you that something that has existed for all of time (as you clearly believe that the universe has) was beginningless and required no cause. Even if you have changed your mind you've offered no reason to think that your original statement was incorrect. Further, age and decay would only be an issue if it were assumed that the cause of our universe were temporal in our time dimension and that it had to exist for long enough for that to matter. Even if we grant the first, there is no need to grant the second. Also let me note that the "cause" of virtual particles is not material in your sense, so physical causes of that sort are not covered by that part of your argument. Really I think that it is premature to go on go other problematic areas of the Kalam argument when you can't even provide a serious resolution of your own issues with premise 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Sorry for missing your response.
quote: I did answer it. Your quote from Craig, however is an attempt to divert the issue because it does not address the point that I made.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I said that I gave an answer - and one that should be good enough for those familiar with Craig's argument. It is a fact that within the Kalam argument, Craig argues for a timeless cause of the universe and a fact that he cannot do so except by denying that there is any time prior to the universe (for the obvious reason that if there were such a time, there could be a temporal cause operating within that time). As for your reference, it's worthless until I can check it. The quote doesn't give enough context to tell if it is truly relevant or not (at about halfway through the book, I'd guess not, though). In fact, the same words appear in a web article and there the "argument" is the simple assertion that the universe began to exist.
God, Time and Eternity Edited by PaulK, : Added URL
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024