Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-30-2017 7:11 AM
133 online now:
CRR, edge, PaulK, RAZD (4 members, 129 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,272 Year: 13,878/21,208 Month: 3,360/3,605 Week: 146/556 Day: 8/89 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Author Topic:   The Kalam cosmological argument
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1059 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 166 of 177 (657035)
03-25-2012 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Shimbabwe
03-24-2012 1:15 PM


Re: bail out already
This methodology is simply not applicable to a timeless, spaceless, beginningless, cause. This entity, on Kalaam, exists causally prior to both space and time.

I have been away for a while, but I see that you are still trying to argue using undefined terms. Two can play at that. Because of flibble you are completely wrong.

You cannot use the phrase "causally prior to both space and time" as the only definition we have of causality is as it pertains to space-time. In fact, that is not enough, as you have to specify the causal structure of that space-time, to be able to take about causal priors. "causally prior to both space and time" simply says "I don't know what I'm talking about but if I use these impressive words enough, I should be able to convince at least a few people that I do".

nevertheless, time cannot go on forever in an earlier than direction, or else this moment would have never arrived, irrespective of any division of time presupposed.

Completely wrong. I see Craig arguing this nonsense and I remember believing something similar as an ignorant physics graduate. Understand that the most basic underlying concept of relativity is that there is no universal clock that ticks away the seconds of the Universe.

The time interval between two events depends completely upon the path through space-time that is taken. Along one path, that interval could be infinite. Along another, it could be 20 minutes. Craig's view is hopelessly naive and demonstrates just how out of his depth he is when he tries to play in this cosmological arena.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-24-2012 1:15 PM Shimbabwe has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1059 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 167 of 177 (657036)
03-25-2012 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Shimbabwe
02-26-2012 2:35 PM


Re: Reply to cavediver and nwr
cavediver writes:

There's a whole lot of words in this paragraph, and 90% of them have virtually no agreed definition...

...I would argue that these terms are self evident and donít require further explanation.

And there lies the reason you will never find any place in science. If I were presenting at a conference, and was asked to explain a term - not matter how trivial - and I replied as you have, I would be laughed out of the auditorium. If you cannot define your terms, you have no argument. You are merely playing semantics.

cavediver writes:

No, it actually seems necessary - that is, a multiverse of one form or another is implicated in many post-Standard Model ideas.

Are you then advocating a necessarily existent universe or ensemble of universes?

"Necessarily existent"? That is a philosophical term, not one that has any meaning within science. All I can say is that many extrapolations of our current (experiementally verified) theories give rise to (different varieties of) multiverse scenarios.

These theories are metaphysical in nature and may never be subject to empirical falsification. So, in this regard at least, they are on equal footing with the God hypothesis.

No, they are not "metaphysical", whatever you mean by that nebulous and rather overused term. They are *theoretical* and based on know space-time mathematics and physics. To even begin to claim that these are on equal footing with the ridiculously anthropocentric "God hypothesis" (I see lightning - therefore, big man in sky throwing lightning bolts) is laughable in the extreme.

cavediver writes:

For one, because we already have an excellent example of parallel worlds creating the appearance of fine-tuning.

Not so fast. There are a great number of possible explanations for apparent fine tuning, the Hartle Ė Hawking model being just one.

You completely miss the point. The parallel worlds to which I was referring are the trillions of stellar systems each providing a possible earth-like planet possibility. The point is that this "many-worlds" type environment exists, and provides the perfect explanation for the goldilocks-zone and biosphere-freindly planet that we inhabit.

Your assertion, however, presupposes the anthropic principle

The weak anthropic principle requires no presupposition. It is pure tautology. Surely you appreciate this? We will only observe ourselves as having evolved on a habitable planet.

Further, it is argued by proponents of KCA that mathematical concepts such as those invoked by Hawking et al are not feasible in the actual world.

proponents of KCA (Craig especially) reveal their complete ignorance of the mathematics/physics of this topic. They are not excatly well placed to make any arguments outside of nebulous pseudo-philosophy (for Craig's obvious lak of critical thinking/willingness to engage in bait-and-switch and subterfuge, let's look at his ontological argument)

I'm more than a little familiar with the mathematics of no-boundary and quantum cosmology in general. Perhaps you would like to bring some these arguments here?

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-26-2012 2:35 PM Shimbabwe has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15930
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 168 of 177 (657072)
03-25-2012 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Shimbabwe
03-24-2012 1:15 PM


Time
Nevertheless, time cannot go on forever in an earlier than direction, or else this moment would have never arrived.

Well, that's a view of time which is not held generally by physicists or indeed theologians. Time, many of them would say, is something like space: it does not move, we move through it; moments do not arrive, we arrive at moments. If we could see time from a God's-eye view, sub specie aeternitatis as the philosophers say, then we would see a monk making the same argument as you in the thirteenth century and a licensed crodwrangler making it in the thirty-seventh. Under this hypothesis of time, your objection vanishes.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-24-2012 1:15 PM Shimbabwe has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11352
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 169 of 177 (657147)
03-26-2012 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Shimbabwe
03-24-2012 1:15 PM


Re: bail out already
You seem to be having difficulty with this concept...

No, I get it. I just think its wrong.

...because you wish to confer physical constraints on an immaterial entity.

That has nothing to do with it at all. God could have created the universe last Thursday; its just that that, like this, doesn't have a good argument to suppose so.

This methodology is simply not applicable to a timeless, spaceless, beginningless, cause.

How is a timeless, spaceless, beginningless thing different from something that just doesn't exist? It never exists and it exists nowhere.

This entity, on Kalaam, exists causally prior to both space and time.

But that's just some nonsense that was made-up to avoid the problem of there a being time or place for said thing to exist... Oh, it exists "causally prior" Pah-lease.

There is no superset or subset of time; the only time we appreciate is the time within our own universe. I did not introduce this concept, as it is believed by most cosmologists. If a multi-verse is possible, its time would theoretically supersede our time in some way; nevertheless, time cannot go on forever in an earlier than direction, or else this moment would have never arrived, irrespective of any division of time presupposed. So we posit a timeless entity.

There's a lot of erroneous nonsense there, and then you say that because of that stuff, you posit a timeless entity. But it doesn't really follow. Ultimately, you're just gonna rely on magic, aren't you? It doesn't have anything to do with the physics of time, you just need a place to put god so you can have your arguement, right? Its apparent that the argument assumes god, and then weasle words its way aroung things so that it can allow for a place for god to remain. Where else would the idea of "causally prior" come from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-24-2012 1:15 PM Shimbabwe has not yet responded

  
Evlreala
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 88
From: Portland, OR United States of America
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 170 of 177 (657614)
03-29-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2012 10:31 AM


Well this is getting silly... but I ain't gonna not reply.

Silly...

Odd that one of the proponents of the KA made my exact same point in Message 126...

You'll have to forgive me, I fail to see how that was relivant. Perhaps you could explain your meaning?

But I'm staying within the premises. Ya know, assuming them true for the sake of arguing?

An excelent way to determine the validity of an argument, however, I never claimed I was addressing the validity if the argument, now did I? Once again, strawmen are not your friends.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, and an eternal god wouldn't begin to exist, so we don't have a reason for supposing its cause. You don't have to assume the premesis are true, but if I am for the sake of arguing, then its beside the point for you to start talking about the premises not being true.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that in order to address an argument you must assume all of the premises are true and look for flaws in the argument's structure... Why is validity your end all of end all?

I can assume your premesis are true and discuss the validity of the argument or come to the conclusion that I am a man-sized cartoon chicken.

I invite you to do so, there is a reason why I made my argument as silly as it is. The below argument is a syllagism presented in modus ponens form.

quote:
If the person known as "Catholic Scientist" on EVCforum.net has made a post on EVCforum.net then the person known as "Catholic Scientist" on EVCforum.net is a man-sized cartoon chicken.
The person known as "Catholic Scientist" on EVCforum.net has made posts on EVCforum.net.

Therefore, the person known as "Catholic Scientist" on EVCforum.net is a man-sized cartoon chicken.

This is a valid argument.


So...
Are you a man-sized cartoon chicken?

Huh? I'm saying that rejecting an argument because the premises aren't true is perfectly fine,

Yet, you still have contention with me doing so...

but if someone is assuming the premesis are true for the sake of argument, then its beside the point to argue that the premesis aren't actually true. Its just a different argument.

I agree, but here's the kicker, where in our exchange did we agree that this was what we were discussing..?

quote:
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.

This is the first instance in our exchange where this issue was brought up. You pointed out that I rejected a premise and informed me that " ...if we're discussing the argument, itself, then we should stick to the premises".

1) How is discussing why I am rejecting a premise in the argument -not- discussing the argument itself?

2) Why should we "stick to the premises" if we are discussing the argument, itself?

In Message 93, the author was exploring one of the premesis:

Okay, now point out where you agreed on your rule set that says the topic can only be discussed by first agreeing to accept the premises as true.

And you still haven't addressed my point:

Within the KA, how would an eternal god require a cause?

You still havent addressed my point:

Why do you keep insisting that man-sized cartoon chickens are proof of an eternal god? (Hint: I'm utilizing the same fallacy here you are.)

(I figure, if you're going to accuse me of being silly, I might as well be silly.)

He's jumbo-sized and wears a disguise,
You're not a man, you're a chicken, Boo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 10:31 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2012 4:04 PM Evlreala has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11352
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 171 of 177 (657624)
03-29-2012 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Evlreala
03-29-2012 3:42 PM


You'll have to forgive me, I fail to see how that was relivant. Perhaps you could explain your meaning?

You said that me bringing up an eternal god was irrlevent the KA, but then a proponent of the KA brought up god being eternal as part of their argument for it.

An excelent way to determine the validity of an argument, however, I never claimed I was addressing the validity if the argument, now did I? Once again, strawmen are not your friends.

I never said that you claimed you were... you're the one with straw in your teeth.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that in order to address an argument you must assume all of the premises are true and look for flaws in the argument's structure...

That's wierd... I explicitly said the exact opposite of that:

quote:
that's just denying one of the premises of the argument. Which is fine, you can reject it on that bases...

Yet, you still have contention with me doing so...

The only contention is how it is in any way relevant to the point I was making

All I said was that your point was irrelevant and you just can't seem to acknowledge that.

I agree, but here's the kicker, where in our exchange did we agree that this was what we were discussing..?

Seriously? Don't have to: it was implicit.

This is the first instance in our exchange where this issue was brought up. You pointed out that I rejected a premise and informed me that " ...if we're discussing the argument, itself, then we should stick to the premises".

1) How is discussing why I am rejecting a premise in the argument -not- discussing the argument itself?

2) Why should we "stick to the premises" if we are discussing the argument, itself?

Forget it, I'm not going to teach you Debating 101.

Okay, now point out where you agreed on your rule set that says the topic can only be discussed by first agreeing to accept the premises as true.

Stupidest thing I've read today... thanks for the chuckle.

A: "If god is eternal, then he doesn't have a beginning"

B: "So wut? If da universe is eternal it woodn't either!"

A: "I'm sorry, sir, but you're beside the point."

B: "OMG!? Wer didja state that I hadta be within tha point?!"

A: "You're retarted"

Good day, sir.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Evlreala, posted 03-29-2012 3:42 PM Evlreala has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Evlreala, posted 03-31-2012 1:22 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Evlreala
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 88
From: Portland, OR United States of America
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 172 of 177 (657865)
03-31-2012 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by New Cat's Eye
03-29-2012 4:04 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

You said that me bringing up an eternal god was irrlevent the KA, but then a proponent of the KA brought up god being eternal as part of their argument for it.

Catholic Scientist writes:

So?

That's beside the point that there are gods that can be postulated that didn't begin to exist.

True, but your point is irrelivant, as it does pertain to the Kalam cosmological argument (the topic of this thread).

The point I was refering to, if you'll note, was the point you made in the quote I provided.

I later go on to try and clearify the matter by directly quoting you again and expanding upon my meaning. (bold added for clairity)

Evlreala writes:

Yes, I am sure your point was irrelevant. That "there are gods that can be postulated that didn't begin to exist" is beside the point. Unless you can demonstrate how/why this "god" you are postulating is necessarily "without cause", your argument is unsound and is thus irrelevant.

By this point, if you misunderstand the context of my claim, I feel it is your own fault.

Catholic Scientist writes:

I never said that you claimed you were... you're the one with straw in your teeth.

Evlreala writes:

I agree, but here's the kicker, where in our exchange did we agree that this was what we were discussing..?

Seriously? Don't have to: it was implicit.

Seriously? That's your defence?
In what way/shape/form was that implied?
Simply making stuff up doesn't make it so.

The rest of your reply is you simply being insulting, childish, small, and rude.

Grow up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2012 4:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-01-2012 11:57 AM Evlreala has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11352
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 173 of 177 (657968)
04-01-2012 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Evlreala
03-31-2012 1:22 PM


Well I did misunderstand what you were saying to me, so I apologize for that. But now that I get it, I'd rather take back all the time I've wasted on it than pursue it any farther. Especially since there are actual proponants of the KA making the same point; we don't need me advocating it too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Evlreala, posted 03-31-2012 1:22 PM Evlreala has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Evlreala, posted 04-01-2012 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Evlreala
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 88
From: Portland, OR United States of America
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 174 of 177 (657984)
04-01-2012 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by New Cat's Eye
04-01-2012 11:57 AM


Well I did misunderstand what you were saying to me, so I apologize for that.

You apologise for the unintentional misrepresentation, but not for;
the intentional misrepresentation..
the ad homminem attacks..
the childish behavior..
or
the flagrant disregard of civil discourse.

Duly noted.

But now that I get it, I'd rather take back all the time I've wasted on it than pursue it any farther. Especially since there are actual proponants of the KA making the same point; we don't need me advocating it too.

Consider the matter dropped.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-01-2012 11:57 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-01-2012 6:19 PM Evlreala has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11352
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 175 of 177 (658009)
04-01-2012 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Evlreala
04-01-2012 3:04 PM


You apologise for the unintentional misrepresentation, but not for;
the intentional misrepresentation..
the ad homminem attacks..
the childish behavior..
or
the flagrant disregard of civil discourse.

Duly noted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Evlreala, posted 04-01-2012 3:04 PM Evlreala has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Evlreala, posted 04-01-2012 6:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 177 by AdminModulous, posted 04-02-2012 8:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Evlreala
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 88
From: Portland, OR United States of America
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 176 of 177 (658014)
04-01-2012 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by New Cat's Eye
04-01-2012 6:19 PM


And yet, you continue to respond..
Have fun with that. =D
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-01-2012 6:19 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 885
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 177 of 177 (658079)
04-02-2012 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by New Cat's Eye
04-01-2012 6:19 PM


Could we try and avoid these kinds of posts? Thanks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-01-2012 6:19 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017