Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Kalam cosmological argument
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 114 of 177 (655907)
03-14-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by kbertsche
03-14-2012 4:07 PM


Re: Always existing.
quote:
Did time itself "begin to exist" at the Big Bang? I would answer "yes". But you and PaulK are forced to answer "no". To both of you, a "yes" answer would imply the logical impossibility that there was a time before time existed.
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:
I think you are inferring much too much from the phrase "began to exist".
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2012 4:07 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 119 of 177 (655940)
03-15-2012 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by kbertsche
03-14-2012 7:57 PM


Re: Always existing.
quote:
I believe that the problem is that CS and PaulK are trying to infer more from the phrase "began to exist" than is meant (more than is meant either by me or by WLC in his presentation of the Kalaam argument).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2012 7:57 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 120 of 177 (655942)
03-15-2012 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by kbertsche
03-14-2012 8:27 PM


Re: Always existing.
quote:
Perhaps this is a matter of perspective, but I don't accept that this is a necessary implication of "begin to exist". I view the phrase "begin to exist" as essentially synonymous with "have a beginning" or "have a finite age".
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2012 8:27 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by kbertsche, posted 03-15-2012 10:51 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 129 of 177 (656041)
03-16-2012 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by kbertsche
03-15-2012 10:51 PM


Re: Always existing.
quote:
This sounds accurate to me. As I read William Lane Craig's presentation of the Kalaam argument, when he says the universe "began to exist" he pretty much means that it does not have an infinite past, but has a finite age.
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:
Everything that began with the universe or later has a finite age.
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:
But not everything necessarily began at all, or has a finite age. For example, God. Or perhaps logical and mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4.
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:
God did not "begin to exist", of course. He has always existed.
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:
I don't understand your complaint.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by kbertsche, posted 03-15-2012 10:51 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by kbertsche, posted 03-16-2012 9:58 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 132 of 177 (656090)
03-16-2012 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by kbertsche
03-16-2012 9:58 AM


Re: Always existing.
quote:
You're right; I don't see a contradiction in my position. I only see a contradiction for one who denies the possibility of a transcendent God.
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:
The universe began at a point in the past. It has a beginning and a finite age.
The God of the Bible is a transcendent being, with no beginning and with infinite age. He created the universe and time itself. He is not bound by the time of the universe which He created.
So you're saying that the Kalam argument is wrong and time is infinite ? Is that your final word ?
quote:
I don't see a contradiction in this.
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by kbertsche, posted 03-16-2012 9:58 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by kbertsche, posted 03-17-2012 11:42 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 136 of 177 (656158)
03-16-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Shimbabwe
03-16-2012 6:17 PM


Re: Objections to premiss one
quote:
We have seen a number of attempts to so define the beginning of the universe on such terms as to imply that the universe has always existed AND that it had an absolute beginning in the finite past. Under close examination this refutation of the causal principle (premiss one of the KCA) may be reduced to a mere tautology, e.g. the universe has existed as long as it has existed”in effect, for all TIME.
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:
One can similarly argue that my own consciousness had a beginning”whether shortly after birth, or at two years of age, or any other arbitrary time along the way”AND that it has always existed, so long as I have been aware. Nevertheless, no one I know”aside from a mystic”would assert that my conscience self has always existed.
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:
In the same way the universe can be said to be known finite to observers, and yet have existed for all TIME
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:
The objection is not a very strong one, and presents a false dilemma for the first premiss. (Bear in mind that this example has already considered the objection of fallacy of composition, and is immune because it is merely presented as an analogy.)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-16-2012 6:17 PM Shimbabwe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-16-2012 7:23 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 138 of 177 (656170)
03-16-2012 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Shimbabwe
03-16-2012 7:23 PM


Re: Objections to premiss one
quote:
Of course it has in the very same way you have continually asserted that the universe has always existed, i.e. as a sole observer of my conscious self, I adamantly claim that it has always existed in the very same manner you claim the universe has. The universe doesn’t gain an exemption because it has multiple observers.
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:
I have not stated anywhere in my replies that the universe did not require a causeyou have inferred thisI simply granted that there was no TIME BEFORE the universe, which is perfectly congruent with my view of a causally prior entity.
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:
The answer here is, quite simply, yes. The universe does require a cause. But that is for later, in the discussion on premiss two.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-16-2012 7:23 PM Shimbabwe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-16-2012 8:58 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 141 of 177 (656228)
03-17-2012 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Shimbabwe
03-16-2012 8:58 PM


Re: Objections to premiss one
quote:
I’ll be sure to add it then. Not really, because my version of the Kalam is the 12th century version propounded by Al Ghazali that certainly could not have foreseen your objection, which is based on modern cosmology.
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:
Consequently, it did not make the claims you are assigning iteven though I clearly understand your objection. 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.
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:
So now I am a liar? Just kidding. Be careful here. 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. The universe may have existed for all TIME and yet require an explanation. An ultimate causal entity need not require an explanation. If the universe is the ultimate, I concede that it requires no cause. This however, has not been demonstrated.
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:
The answer here is, quite simply, yes. The universe does require a cause. But that is for later, in the discussion on premiss two.
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:
Fair enough then. I accept your criticism, but can assure you I am not being intentionally equivocal. And in some way, it seems easier to discussnot just better for meon individual parts, as opposed to answering every objection to the entire argument, which you must admit are multifarious. I think philosophical arguments in general can sometimes appear equivocal.
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:
I think philosophical arguments in general can sometimes appear equivocal. However, the same can be true of opposing disciplines. People in all fields tend to have serious biases regarding their favored discipline. As a non physicist, I think mathematically constructed parallel universes are incredibly far-fetched, primarily because they don’t appeal to me. That aside, each premiss must be plausible for the whole to be sound. If one premiss is false, then the argument’s conclusion is obviously false. All one need do is demonstrate how ANYTHING begins to exist without a cause to falsify premiss one.
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:
Maybe so, we haven’t concluded that yet. I still think it is sound.
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:
By the way, we are a long, long, way from proving anything at this point. Nevertheless, I think we are on the right course. My goal is not at all to prove that the argument is irrefutable; but, only that it is plausible. Other arguments exist that I think are more convincing. There is, however, no need to throw the baby out just yet.
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.

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 147 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-17-2012 1:39 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 144 of 177 (656277)
03-17-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by kbertsche
03-17-2012 11:42 AM


Re: Always existing.
quote:
Where/how does the Kalaam argument insist that time is finite?
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by kbertsche, posted 03-17-2012 11:42 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by kbertsche, posted 03-17-2012 1:20 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 149 of 177 (656293)
03-17-2012 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Shimbabwe
03-17-2012 1:39 PM


Re: Objections to premiss one
quote:
Very well then, I want to also be clear. On my view, there isn’t a nickel’s worth of difference between the two, at least in regard to the premisses as stated.
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:
You seem to be reading much more into my replies than I am actually stating
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:
The Kalam need not address this issue except on a causal basis. One need not postulatewith cosmologistsnumerous entities without our universe, when a single, causally prior, simultaneous, entity will suffice. Hume was correct in this regard.
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:
Again PaulK, you linked timeless with beginningless in my statement.
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:
Why can’t you accept the fact that I agree with you that the universe has existed for all TIME, and yet has an absolute beginning, whichin my opinion requires a cause
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:
Could not a causally priornot temporally prior — entity be a plausible explanation for the universe?
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:
I don’t think anyone is being intentionally vague.
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:
Some concepts are necessarily vague. Trying to explain BEGINS TO EXIST in the sense I hope to convey has a whole lot to do with one’s own definition of time, which in itself can be quite difficult to articulate
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:
or example, I believe in a timeless, beginningless, causally prior, immaterial, efficient, cause of the universe. This may be quite difficult to articulate, and for some difficult to conceptualize. Nevertheless, many theists have held this view in one form or another most of their lives. It would be disingenuous to assume that a every naturalist, for example, would readily accept the concept with no such framework. The converse is also true, I suspect.
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:
Fair enough. However, I think we both have a better understanding of the argument than you are admitting. I also think the stakes are much higher for you. If the first premiss is true, it will be difficult to resist the second. So, the argument as a whole tack is a good one for you.
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:
This issue has been addressed multiple times.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-17-2012 1:39 PM Shimbabwe has not replied

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


Message 154 of 177 (656472)
03-19-2012 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Shimbabwe
03-18-2012 10:03 PM


Re: Objections to premiss one
quote:
OK. I’ll bite. Honestly, it’s personal preference. I simply like the older version’s usage of EVERY BEING, as opposed to Craig’s WHATEVER, even though I think there is little, if any, semantic difference. The sub point we have been discussing has to do with defining BEGINNING, which I think is easier on Al Ghazali’s version.
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:
Most everyone understands that beginning to ride a bicycle, for example, is not the same as already riding a bicycle.
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:
The other reason I switched is because I felt that the focus on Craig’s version might lead to numerous tangential objections, possibly from a personal bias toward Dr. Craig.
I don't see why. I certainly haven't focussed on Craig as a person.
quote:
The Kalam need not address this issue except on a causal basis. One need not postulatewith cosmologistsnumerous entities without our universe, when a single, causally prior, simultaneous, entity will suffice. Hume was correct in this regard.
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:
On the contrary, numerous cosmological timesone for each universe or multi-verse would not necessarily be problematic on my view. I reject some versions on philosophical or cosmological grounds, nonetheless. In my view, these hypotheses don’t escape time within their own realm, whether on A theory or B theory.
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:
If you say I implied this
I don't. I say that you EXPLICITLY stated it, and I have quoted you to prove it.
quote:
Alright then, we disagree. You continually use the word time in a different sense than I. Perhaps this is because my view is not clearly articulated, or maybe, your view is not. You have rejected timelessness, so we can’t possibly agree on that point. If I reject timeless entities, my argument for the KCA evaporates. Please note: For all TIME does not equal BEGINNING-LESS on my view.
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:
Very well, then. I disagree that the universe does not require a cause.
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:
Many philosophical and scientific matters are difficult to grasp. This issue does not stop one from embracing a particular viewpoint. There are a great number of things we don’t understand fully. I suspect there are several in your discipline.
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:
Words are arguably the best way to communicating knowledge from person to person. Some conceptsand I would consider philosophical, mathematical, and psychological, theories in thisare simply not easy to articulate. That does not mean these concepts are not understood.
However, in this case, words are not the issue....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-18-2012 10:03 PM Shimbabwe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-22-2012 11:52 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 160 of 177 (656914)
03-23-2012 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Shimbabwe
03-22-2012 11:52 PM


Re: Some elucidation, I hope
quote:
Perhaps my view is in agreement with both. I don’t think this should present a problem, as there is no trickery involved. I’ll happily defend either. If one fails, the other fails, in my opinion.
OK, you don't want to explain why you suddenly went from talking only about Craig to insisting that you preferred Al Ghazali.
quote:
Yes. The difference is exactly as you conclude
And that difference is why your alleged analogy fails.
quote:
and, I maintainI am restating this for the sake of everyone else, not youthat the universe has not always existed, but began a finite time ago.
In fact that's not true. You hold that the universe has always existed AND began a long time ago.
quote:
This, I think, is consonant with both versions of KCA under examination. I do agree, for argument’s sake, that the universe has existed for all TIMEits own cosmological timebut I don’t think it is actually beginning-less. Incidentally, this is Craig’s position on the matter, as I have heard him elucidate it on a number of occasions. I agree with him in this regard.
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:
Time outside the universe is not really problematic on Craig’s view, or on mine.
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:
Something that has existed eternally would not require a cause. But my contention is that no being could have existed forever, with respect to time, because an infinite regressin the earlier than directionwould necessarily be introduced; consequently, the thing could never be
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:
Any proposed material being would be subject to some physical laws e.g. aging, decaying etc. Therefore, an immaterial and timeless being is arguably the best plausible solution for coping with this dilemma.
Perhaps you should introduce the dilemma before claiming to have a solution.
quote:
Whatever brought the universe into existence must exist without time and space in order to transcend all reality.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-22-2012 11:52 PM Shimbabwe has not replied

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


Message 162 of 177 (656932)
03-23-2012 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by kbertsche
03-17-2012 1:20 PM


Re: Always existing.
Sorry for missing your response.
quote:
Please answer my question, if possible, rather than trying to deflect it.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by kbertsche, posted 03-17-2012 1:20 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by kbertsche, posted 03-23-2012 11:37 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 164 of 177 (656951)
03-23-2012 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by kbertsche
03-23-2012 11:37 AM


Re: Always existing.
quote:
If you answered it, I missed it. I have not yet seen you post a reference that we can check.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by kbertsche, posted 03-23-2012 11:37 AM kbertsche 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