Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,846 Year: 4,103/9,624 Month: 974/974 Week: 301/286 Day: 22/40 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 14 of 308 (517336)
07-31-2009 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by RevCrossHugger
07-31-2009 8:16 AM


(1) We have a vast experience of causes and effects. As such, it is rational to believe the first premise of the Cosmological Argument on our own experience alone.
Wrong on both counts. We have considerable evidence of uncaused events - have a look at quantum mechanics and radioactive decay - and assuming that because everything in the set has a property that set also has that property commits the logical fallacy of composition.
(2) Premise one seems to be an intrinsically obvious truth. Certainly one must believe it more rational to believe that nothing will create nothing, than nothing would create something. Such a concept seems to introduce a new kind of “nothing” altogether! If we apply Occam’s Razor, it would be much simpler to imagine that nothing created nothing, rather than that something would come from nothing. To summarize, why believe that something can come from nothing, and even if it could, there is no reason to think that it would.
1. We observe something coming from nothing all the time.
2. If the universe does indeed "begin" it is meaningless to talk about that beginning as a change, or having a cause. Without time you can have change, and you cannot have causes, and time is part of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-31-2009 8:16 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Richard Townsend, posted 07-31-2009 12:54 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 307 by jaywill, posted 10-21-2009 12:23 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 52 of 308 (517414)
07-31-2009 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by RevCrossHugger
07-31-2009 1:03 PM


I think you may be confusing random effect for cause and effect. Quantum events have cause for every effect. Say a virtual particle pops into existence, that particles twin is the cause for the effect of the emerged particle.
You are using an extremely odd notion of cause, and also one which completely undermines your argument. Suppose I posit "The cause of the universe is the twin of the universe" and - bam - there's no reason to follow your argument to your desired conclusion.
Also, I note you gave no response to your argument being based on the fallacy of composition?
I asked for 10 true examples to offset hundreds of thousands if not millions of examples that support cause and effect. I wasn't being mean and only suggested ten as a means to show that the my claim was more rational than yours.
I don't need ten, or two, I need one. With just one example your premise is shot. You've presented a logical premise regarding all events; if just one event does not have a cause, your premise is false.
As it happens we know of a great many examples of uncaused events (note, here, I use the normal definition of cause, not the bizarre notion you put forward above); quantum mechanics spits them out all over the place, and they go on all around us.
While it may sound grossly counter intuitive to say that cause and effect does not require time, it is an accurate claim. Physicists do not look at time in the same way as most laypeople. In reality an egg should break as easily as it "un-breaks". Physical processes at the microscopic level are thought to be either entirely or mostly time symmetric, which means that the theoretical statements which describe them remain true if the direction of time is reversed. So cause and effect is not time dependent.
Physicists do not look at time how you think they do. But let us accept that a cause need not be temporally prior to its effect, then your argument again crumbles. If causes do not need to be prior to their effects, then there is no reason to suppose that the cause of the universe is prior to it, and without a timeline to staple your argument to it fails because any cause can happen any time we do not need a cause outside of the universe. Maybe the universe caused itself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-31-2009 1:03 PM RevCrossHugger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-31-2009 6:58 PM Dr Jack 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