Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Kalam cosmological argument
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 59 of 177 (654444)
03-01-2012 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Shimbabwe
02-29-2012 7:28 PM


I do not confer state-ness on an immaterial, timeless, beginningless, entity as you claim.
How is a state-less, immaterial, timeless, beginningless thing different from something that just does not exist at all? What is the difference between its "existence" and non-existence?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Shimbabwe, posted 02-29-2012 7:28 PM Shimbabwe has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 177 (655679)
03-12-2012 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Shimbabwe
03-11-2012 9:06 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
2. The universe is a being which began to exist
That implies a point in time where the universe did not exist... but we ain't got one of those.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-11-2012 9:06 PM Shimbabwe has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 177 (655680)
03-12-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Pressie
03-12-2012 8:11 AM


Re: Reply to PAulK
quote:
1. Every being which begins to exist has a cause for its existence
  —Shimbabwe1
Therefore, any god postulated must also have a cause for it's existence, another greater god, maybe? In the end its turtles, all the way down. Unless you want to employ special pleading.
You could postulate a god that always existed and therefore did not begin to exist. Just sayin'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Pressie, posted 03-12-2012 8:11 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Evlreala, posted 03-13-2012 11:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 98 by Pressie, posted 03-14-2012 12:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 177 (655869)
03-14-2012 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Pressie
03-14-2012 12:39 AM


quote:
1. Every being which begins to exist has a cause for its existence
  —Shimbabwe1
Therefore, any god postulated must also have a cause for it's existence, another greater god, maybe? In the end its turtles, all the way down. Unless you want to employ special pleading.
You could postulate a god that always existed and therefore did not begin to exist. Just sayin'.
Special pleading again. Everything, except a god....
However, you could postulate that matter and energy always existed. We have evidence for the existence of matter and energy. Nothing for the existence of a god.
Well sure, but you were the one who brought up god. I was responding specifically to this claim:
quote:
any god postulated must also have a cause for it's existence
That's just not true, for the reason I offered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Pressie, posted 03-14-2012 12:39 AM Pressie has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 177 (655870)
03-14-2012 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Evlreala
03-13-2012 11:55 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
Catholic Scientist writes:
You could postulate a god that always existed and therefore did not begin to exist. Just sayin'.
You could apply Occam's razer, postulate a universe that always existed and therefore did not begin to exist or require a creator to create it, as well.
So?
That's beside the point that there are gods that can be postulated that didn't begin to exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Evlreala, posted 03-13-2012 11:55 PM Evlreala has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Evlreala, posted 03-14-2012 7:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 177 (655893)
03-14-2012 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by kbertsche
03-14-2012 11:36 AM


Re: Always existing.
But it seems quite reasonable to say that something with a finite age (e.g. the universe) "began to exist."
But then we'd need a point in time for the universe to begin to exist from, that is; a point in time where the universe does not exist. And we ain't got one of those.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2012 11:36 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2012 1:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 177 (655903)
03-14-2012 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by kbertsche
03-14-2012 1:37 PM


Re: Always existing.
quote:
But then we'd need a point in time for the universe to begin to exist from,
  —CS
We've got such a point (t=0, a starting point).
What you're saying is that the universe was non-existant at T=0 and I'm pretty sure cosmologists would disagree.
quote:
that is; a point in time where the universe does not exist. And we ain't got one of those.
  —CS
To "begin to exist" implies a t=0. But I don't believe it necessarily implies anything about t<0.
First off, "begin to exist" implies a point of non-existence (regardless of what T equals). If you're saying that point is T=0, then you're saying the universe doesn't exist at that point.
So the universe does not exist at T=0 and then at T=0+ it does exist. Are you saying it just poofed into existence from nothing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2012 1:37 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2012 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 177 (655905)
03-14-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by kbertsche
03-14-2012 4:07 PM


Re: Always existing.
False. As I've explained to PaulK, I am definitely NOT saying this.
But you are, whether you realize it or not. Its the implication of what you're typing. Something cannot begin to exist if it wasn't non-existant at some point.
Rather, I claim that the universe "began to exist" at T=0.
Well that's different... that implies a a T<0. Before, you were saying that the universe began to exist from T=0; which implies it didn't exist at T=0. It can't simultaneously begin to exist both from and at T=0. That's just not what beginning means.
I'm pretty sure that cosmologists DO agree that the universe began at the Big Bang. They wouldn't use the phrase "began to exist" because it sounds pedantic and philosophical. But that's exactly what they mean.
But its not what they mean. Cosmology has the universe existing at all points in time, that is, there are no points in time, including T=0, where the universe does not exist. The universe always exists at all points in time. Now here comes the tricky part: there's a finite past. Its not at all intuitive, but so be it.
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.
At T=0, "begging to exist" looses all meaning as there's nowhen to begin from. Spacetime curves back on itself like the northpole of the surface of the Earth. You can only go north so far, but it doesn't makes sense to say that the northness of the surface "begins to exist" at that point: you're still just at a point on the surface, itself. There's nowhere for the northness of the surface to begin from. The only thing close would be the point in outerspace just above the surface of the earth, but then you're no longer on the surface anymore so technically you're "nowhere". That would be northness comming from nowhere, like the universe comming from nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2012 4:07 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2012 8:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 177 (655996)
03-15-2012 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by kbertsche
03-14-2012 8:27 PM


Re: Always existing.
Thanks for the discussion, kb.
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".
Why? Is there anything other than it ruining the argument?
What do cosmologists mean that the universe "began" at the Big Bang?
They mean: "I'm trying to explain this complicated phenomenon as consisely as possible so I'll just use this word that everybody knows even though it doesn't adequately describe what's going on."
What did it "begin" to do? Obviously, it "began to exist".
It began to exist as we know it, but it wasn't non-existant before that.
Nothing is "different". I never used the phrase "from t=0"; it was always "at t=0".
In Message 110, you wrote:
CS:
But then we'd need a point in time for the universe to begin to exist from,
We've got such a point (t=0, a starting point).
That's a "from".
Why must negative times exist?
Negative time must exist if your postulating the beginning of the existence of the universe being at T=0 because you have to have a point in time from which it begins from, that is; a point in time where the universe does not exist. And any point in time before zero must be negative.
We could say that our measurements of latitude "begin" or "begin to exist" at the earth's North Pole. But this does NOT imply that there must be something north of the North Pole.
When its analogous to the singularity at the initial conditions of the universe, that's exactly what it means.
Likewise, mention of t=0 does NOT necessarily imply that t<0 exists.
Sure, the mention of it doesn't. Its the applying of a beginning in time at that point that does.

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 127 by kbertsche, posted 03-15-2012 11:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 177 (655997)
03-15-2012 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Evlreala
03-14-2012 7:58 PM


Re: Reply to PAulK
True, but your point is irrelivant, as it does pertain to the Kalam cosmological argument (the topic of this thread).
Are you sure? I thought the Kalam Get-Outta-First-Cause-Free card was the eternal-ness of the god? That it being eternal meant that it, itself, didn't need a cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Evlreala, posted 03-14-2012 7:58 PM Evlreala has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Evlreala, posted 03-15-2012 5:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 177 (656026)
03-15-2012 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Evlreala
03-15-2012 5:02 PM


I am sure,
I meant: Are you sure my point was irrelevant...
just because I claimed my comment was pertinent to the Kalam cosmological argument, doesn't mean it was necessarily in favor of it.
I didn't read it as in favor of it, but as being, itself, irrelevant.
Even if there is an eternally existing god, if the universe is eternally existing as well, the Kalam cosmological argument still falls apart.
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. And one of those is the universe not being eternal.
This lead to the claim that any god postulated would also need a cause, which I rebut with the postulation of an eternal god (which wouldn't require a cause). Then you come in with Occams razor and an eternal universe and say that my point is off topic I'm not seeing the relevance of your point nor how mine is irrelevant. And I don't see how my rebuttal of any god also requiring a cause has been dealt with within the Kalam argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Evlreala, posted 03-15-2012 5:02 PM Evlreala has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 6:00 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 155 by Evlreala, posted 03-19-2012 11:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 177 (656047)
03-16-2012 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by kbertsche
03-15-2012 11:10 PM


Re: Always existing.
quote:
Gott et al, Scientific American, March 1976, p. 65 writes:
...the universe began from a state of infinite density...

If it had a state of infinite density, then it already existed. This cannot mean a begining of existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by kbertsche, posted 03-15-2012 11:10 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 177 (656584)
03-20-2012 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Evlreala
03-19-2012 11:55 PM


Well this is getting silly... but I ain't gonna not reply.
Yes, I am sure your point was irrelevant.
Odd that one of the proponents of the KA made my exact same point in Message 126...
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.
But I'm staying within the premises. Ya know, assuming them true for the sake of arguing? 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.
Would you mind explaining how it was irrelevant?
Sure, lets use the example you provided:
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 is a valid argument.
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. For you to come in and start rejecting the premises would be irrlevelant to the arguments that assume the premises are true.
So, by your account, I'm not discussing the premises by addressing the argument's soundness? Did I misunderstand that? Didn't you just point out that I was rejecting the premise? How is that not addresses the premises?
Huh? I'm saying that rejecting an argument because the premises aren't true is perfectly fine, 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.
In Message 93, the author was exploring one of the premesis:
quote:
Shimbabwe1:
1. Every being which begins to exist has a cause for its existence
Therefore, any god postulated must also have a cause for it's existence, another greater god, maybe? In the end its turtles, all the way down. Unless you want to employ special pleading.
They've assumed the premise as true and are following it through to a conclusion.
I chime in with this:
quote:
You could postulate a god that always existed and therefore did not begin to exist. Just sayin'.
I'm still assuming the premise is true, but showing that the conclusion that the author made doesn't necessarily follow.
Then you reply with:
quote:
You could apply Occam's razer, postulate a universe that always existed and therefore did not begin to exist or require a creator to create it, as well.
Which doesn't have anything to do with whether or not there could be a god that didn't have a cause for its existence. As I said: its beside the point. Its irrelevant.
And that's when you starting getting into whether or not what I was saying was relevant to the topic:
quote:
True, but your point is irrelivant, as it does pertain to the Kalam cosmological argument (the topic of this thread).
And you still haven't addressed my point:
Within the KA, how would an eternal god require a cause?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Evlreala, posted 03-19-2012 11:55 PM Evlreala has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Evlreala, posted 03-29-2012 3:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 177 (656930)
03-23-2012 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Shimbabwe
03-22-2012 11:52 PM


bail out already
...the universe has not always existed, but began a finite time ago. {snip}
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.
If it has not always existed, then there should be a point in time where it doesn't exist. If there isn't a point in time where it does not exist, then it has existed for all time.
To get around this contradiction, you're introducing another time, "the universe's own cosmological time", that is presumably some superset to the time we actually know of.
But you don't have any other reason to suppose this other kind of time than to save face in light of the Kahlam Argument falling into a contradiction. If you have to go through these sorts of mental gymnastics to maintain the veracity of an argument, don't you think its about time to start considering that the argument isn't really that good?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-22-2012 11:52 PM Shimbabwe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Shimbabwe, posted 03-24-2012 1:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(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 replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024