Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28
  1. #1
    Cafe Conqueror X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,775

    The Kalam Argument

    "1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
    2. The universe began to exist;
    Therefore:
    3. The universe has a cause.

    1. The universe has a cause;
    2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
    Therefore:
    3. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful."

    What do you guys think about this?


    The Commander From Hell

    We The North








  2. #2
    Banned Drift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    The Gucci store
    Posts
    10,292
    just because we dont know the cause doesn't mean its god

  3. #3
    The Kalam Argument itself is absolutely foolproof, but what you posted is a very simplified version that could be misinterpreted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gay View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    just because we dont know the cause doesn't mean its god
    It's God by default. There's nothing else that fits the description of the uncaused cause.
    No.​

  4. #4
    Banned Drift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    The Gucci store
    Posts
    10,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Kalam Argument itself is absolutely foolproof, but what you posted is a very simplified version that could be misinterpreted.



    It's God by default. There's nothing else that fits the description of the uncaused cause.
    so god means "we dont know"?

  5. #5
    ReXDrake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Kalam Argument itself is absolutely foolproof, but what you posted is a very simplified version that could be misinterpreted.



    It's God by default. There's nothing else that fits the description of the uncaused cause.
    proof that it NECESSARILY has all the attributes that makes it qualify as "God", and that there aren't potentially multiple eternal causes at play.






    Not everyone dies because they want to die.

    Most of them die against their will

  6. #6
    Cafe Conqueror X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Kalam Argument itself is absolutely foolproof, but what you posted is a very simplified version that could be misinterpreted.



    It's God by default. There's nothing else that fits the description of the uncaused cause.
    Do explain more.


    The Commander From Hell

    We The North








  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Gay View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    so god means "we dont know"?
    You're misunderstanding the conclusion that the Kalam Argument arrives at. The First Cause is not an 'I don't know" but rather a description of the First Cause and the attributes that make it the First Cause in the first place. Namely, omnipotence (ie - complete independence from anything and everything). So the First Cause it by default God because anything omnipotent is by default God.

    Quote Originally Posted by ReXDrake View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    proof that it NECESSARILY has all the attributes that makes it qualify as "God", and that there aren't potentially multiple eternal causes at play.
    You need to stop thinking empirically. You can't observe the First Cause, you can only rationally prove it.

    The First Cause has to be independent of anything in order to quality as the First Cause. If it were dependent on anything, it wouldn't be the First Cause. Anything completely independent of anything and everything is by default God.
    No.​

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by X View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do explain more.

    It's late now. Tomorrow I'll give it a shot.
    No.​

  9. #9
    Banned Drift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    The Gucci store
    Posts
    10,292
    neat but thats assuming god exists

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Gay View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    neat but thats assuming god exists
    No, it's proving God exists. The Kalam Argument proves the First Cause which is just another name for God.
    No.​

  11. #11
    ReXDrake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You're misunderstanding the conclusion that the Kalam Argument arrives at. The First Cause is not an 'I don't know" but rather a description of the First Cause and the attributes that make it the First Cause in the first place. Namely, omnipotence (ie - complete independence from anything and everything). So the First Cause it by default God because anything omnipotent is by default God.



    You need to stop thinking empirically. You can't observe the First Cause, you can only rationally prove it.

    The First Cause has to be independent of anything in order to quality as the First Cause. If it were dependent on anything, it wouldn't be the First Cause.
    Anything completely independent of anything and everything is by default God.
    that's not what I mean

    Youre referring to aseity, but that's only one of the attributes "God" is theorized to possess. Ill assume there is only 1 cause for the sake of argument (even though you keep avoiding my question).

    Just because this entity/whatever set everything into motion, it doesn't follow that it is capable of doing x, y or z, that would be the composition fallacy. Youd have to demonstrate that






    Not everyone dies because they want to die.

    Most of them die against their will

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by ReXDrake View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    that's not what I mean

    Youre referring to aseity, but that's only one of the attributes "God" is theorized to possess. Ill assume there is only 1 cause for the sake of argument (even though you keep avoiding my question).

    Just because this entity/whatever set everything into motion, it doesn't follow that it is capable of doing x, y or z, that would be the composition fallacy. Youd have to demonstrate that
    Aseity and omnipotence go hand in hand. You can't separate the two. They are one and the same.

    The First Cause didn't just set things into motion, if that was all it did it wouldn't be truly independent nor would it qualify as the First Cause. The First Cause is also necessarily the Sustainer, everything it dependent on it at all times.
    Last edited by Pimp of Pimps; 06-26-2018 at 05:26 AM.
    No.​

  13. #13
    ReXDrake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Aseity and omnipotence go hand in hand. You can't separate the two. they are one and the same.

    The First Cause didn't just set things into motion,
    if that was all it did it wouldn't be truly independent nor would it qualify as the First Cause. The First Cause is also necessarily the Sustainer, everything it dependent on it at all times.
    that's not true at all

    X can be incontingent on Y (that would mean that with respect to y, it has aseity) without necessarily having anything to do with it or being able to do what it can. There are countless examples of this.
    Last edited by ReXDrake; 06-26-2018 at 05:36 AM.






    Not everyone dies because they want to die.

    Most of them die against their will

  14. #14
    i haven't done counter-apologetics in awhile so i forgot alot but I will give some notes.

    The Kalam Cosmological argument was formulated by William Lane Craig as philosophical proof of God's existence and appealed to our intuitive faculties. It is derived from a series of cosmological arguments dating back to Islamic and greek times. Sometimes, it is cited as the most powerful argument for the existence of God.

    Premise 1 --> Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    Is an intuitive inductive premise that may be agreed on. Beginning to exist requires you to be located in the causal chain where you can find cause and effect. Some people will say that there are examples of processes that do not seem to have a [material] cause. Ex. radioactive decay, virtual particles, and many things in the quantum world which are very counter-intuitive yet we know they exist. In that case, premise 1 can be revised to: "Whatever begins to exist has an efficient cause", and the Kalamist would substitute the laws of quantum mechanics for the efficient cause.

    What doesn't begin to exist are necessary existences. These are eternal, infinite "things" that provide grounding for all existence. Necessary things do not begin to exist --> they have always existed. This is how God is exempt from all of this.

    Premise 2 --> The universe began to exist.
    This generally refers to the Big Bang and this is where the counter-argument begins. What is meant exactly by "the universe"? How can the Beginning of All Beginnings truly begin to exist?

    Conclusion --> Therefore the universe has a cause.
    This conclusion follows from the premises so it is logically valid. Therefore, one has to talk about the soundness of premise 2 and wonder to what extent that is true.

    The other shit is an extension of the Kalam and can wait until later, but I do find them to be flimsy. Usually the universe having a cause refers to an efficient cause so God created the universe via creation ex nihilo (absolute nothingness) because the claim is that the alternate origin of the universe viewpoint ( spontaneous origination) has neither a material or efficient cause.

    Preparing A Refutation of the Kalamists; Logical Incoherence and the Universal Material Causation Argument
    Why U Equivocating, mun?: How can the beginning of the universe, which is the causal/space-time chain itself. be involved with the laws of cause of effect for which this argument relies on? Everything that we say which begins to exist references the experience of pre-existing material being re-arranged. To apply our logic to make causal claims about something which exists outside of space-time (and even worse where there's no material).... will be logically unsound, because causality breaks down at and before the beginning of the universe. I find the logic employed by premise 2 to be incoherent.


    Do All Beginnings have a Cause?: The first premise assumes a priori that an uncaused beginning of all things is impossible. Yet, the First Moment is the beginning of the natural order itself. There is no familiar context for the First Beginning. There is no evidence for the kind of intuition that justifies the premises. The KCA makes inductive claims on causality, which cannot be done due to the Problem of Induction . Even the causal principle seem to be indeterminate at the quantum level, where causation occurs in a non-predetermined manner (suggesting spontaneity).

    The Cosmological Argument......for Apostates.
    There is an even more intuitive form of the cosmological argument based on the laws of causation:

    P1: All material things have material causes.
    P2: The universe is a material thing.
    C: Therefore, the universe has a material cause.

    P1 --> That something made of material must have been fashioned from pre-existing material conforms very much to our intuitive faculties.
    P2 --> That the universe is a trillion-light year wide swimming pool of galactic matter is also that all can agree on.
    P3 --> Conclusion follows from premises logically and soundly.

    I call the KCA out for equivocating, composition fallacy, and misunderstanding the beginning of the universe.
    Last edited by Egress; 06-26-2018 at 06:24 PM.

  15. #15
    ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็ ส็็็ Tendou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    WE DEM BOYS
    Posts
    6,167
    im not sure why an uncaused creator existing would logically follow. why would the creator leap frog over the beginning stage of existence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Minty View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You wouldn't understand the substance. (under-sub; stand-stance)
    Quote Originally Posted by Typhoon T.O.P. View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Calling someone a nigger is not racist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Heart View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    "As I watched top with a bashful smile, all I could do was bitterly laugh. His Dao of absurdity and anti-grammar had reached a level beyond my comprehension. "Dealth" was myy only fate."
    B

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Tendou View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    im not sure why an uncaused creator existing would logically follow. why would the creator leap frog over the beginning stage of existence?
    The Creator would logically be without beginning or end. This is the only explanation for the existence of anything finite or dependent.
    No.​

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by X View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Do explain more.
    Alright. Everything that exists and is 'finite' is or was dependent on something else or on multiple things. Either in terms of being sustained, being created or both. For example, the creation of a human being is dependent on a specific process and we depend on multiple things which allow us to continue to exist. So everything that is finite is dependent on something else, and if the thing it is dependent on is also finite it too is dependent on something else and so on and so forth. If you follow the trail eventually it has to end somewhere. The only possible solution is the existent of something that is independent from everything else. Which necessitates it being timeless, all-powerful etc.

    I've simplified this as much as possible, even leaving out the usual premise based structure to the argument. If you have any questions I can clarify as needed.
    No.​

  18. #18
    ReXDrake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Alright. Everything that exists and is 'finite' is or was dependent on something else or on multiple things. Either in terms of being sustained, being created or both. For example, the creation of a human being is dependent on a specific process and we depend on multiple things which allow us to continue to exist. So everything that is finite is dependent on something else, and if the thing it is dependent on is also finite it too is dependent on something else and so on and so forth. If you follow the trail eventually it has to end somewhere. The only possible solution is the existent of something that is independent from everything else. Which necessitates it being timeless, all-powerful etc.

    I've simplified this as much as possible, even leaving out the usual premise based structure to the argument. If you have any questions I can clarify as needed.
    it really is pathetic that you just ignore my refutations and repeat your bullshit in the hope no one will notice.

    You have not demonstrated that this causal agent is necessarily all powerful/omnipotent, and if you knew your philosophy, youd know better than to proclaim that its "infinite" in some sense, as its well understood in philosophy that actual infinites aren't coherent or possible.

    Keep on being a gutless fucking coward, youre doing your beloved religion proud






    Not everyone dies because they want to die.

    Most of them die against their will

  19. #19
    Say my name Ultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    84,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Egress View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    i haven't done counter-apologetics in awhile so i forgot alot but I will give some notes.

    The Kalam Cosmological argument was formulated by William Lane Craig as philosophical proof of God's existence and appealed to our intuitive faculties. It is derived from a series of cosmological arguments dating back to Islamic and greek times. Sometimes, it is cited as the most powerful argument for the existence of God.

    Premise 1 --> Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    Is an intuitive inductive premise that may be agreed on. Beginning to exist requires you to be located in the causal chain where you can find cause and effect. Some people will say that there are examples of processes that do not seem to have a [material] cause. Ex. radioactive decay, virtual particles, and many things in the quantum world which are very counter-intuitive yet we know they exist. In that case, premise 1 can be revised to: "Whatever begins to exist has an efficient cause", and the Kalamist would substitute the laws of quantum mechanics for the efficient cause.

    What doesn't begin to exist are necessary existences. These are eternal, infinite "things" that provide grounding for all existence. Necessary things do not begin to exist --> they have always existed. This is how God is exempt from all of this.

    Premise 2 --> The universe began to exist.
    This generally refers to the Big Bang and this is where the counter-argument begins. What is meant exactly by "the universe"? How can the Beginning of All Beginnings truly begin to exist?

    Conclusion --> Therefore the universe has a cause.
    This conclusion follows from the premises so it is logically valid. Therefore, one has to talk about the soundness of premise 2 and wonder to what extent that is true.

    The other shit is an extension of the Kalam and can wait until later, but I do find them to be flimsy. Usually the universe having a cause refers to an efficient cause so God created the universe via creation ex nihilo (absolute nothingness) because the claim is that the alternate origin of the universe viewpoint ( spontaneous origination) has neither a material or efficient cause.

    Preparing A Refutation of the Kalamists; Logical Incoherence and the Universal Material Causation Argument
    Why U Equivocating, mun?: How can the beginning of the universe, which is the causal/space-time chain itself. be involved with the laws of cause of effect for which this argument relies on? Everything that we say which begins to exist references the experience of pre-existing material being re-arranged. To apply our logic to make causal claims about something which exists outside of space-time (and even worse where there's no material).... will be logically unsound, because causality breaks down at and before the beginning of the universe. I find the logic employed by premise 2 to be incoherent.


    Do All Beginnings have a Cause?: The first premise assumes a priori that an uncaused beginning of all things is impossible. Yet, the First Moment is the beginning of the natural order itself. There is no familiar context for the First Beginning. There is no evidence for the kind of intuition that justifies the premises. The KCA makes inductive claims on causality, which cannot be done due to the Problem of Induction . Even the causal principle seem to be indeterminate at the quantum level, where causation occurs in a non-predetermined manner (suggesting spontaneity).

    The Cosmological Argument......for Apostates.
    There is an even more intuitive form of the cosmological argument based on the laws of causation:

    P1: All material things have material causes.
    P2: The universe is a material thing.
    C: Therefore, the universe has a material cause.

    P1 --> That something made of material must have been fashioned from pre-existing material conforms very much to our intuitive faculties.
    P2 --> That the universe is a trillion-light year wide swimming pool of galactic matter is also that all can agree on.
    P3 --> Conclusion follows from premises logically and soundly.

    I call the KCA out for equivocating, composition fallacy, and misunderstanding the beginning of the universe.
    Solid post

    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp of Pimps View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Alright. Everything that exists and is 'finite' is or was dependent on something else or on multiple things. Either in terms of being sustained, being created or both. For example, the creation of a human being is dependent on a specific process and we depend on multiple things which allow us to continue to exist. So everything that is finite is dependent on something else, and if the thing it is dependent on is also finite it too is dependent on something else and so on and so forth. If you follow the trail eventually it has to end somewhere. The only possible solution is the existent of something that is independent from everything else. Which necessitates it being timeless, all-powerful etc.

    I've simplified this as much as possible, even leaving out the usual premise based structure to the argument. If you have any questions I can clarify as needed.
    But it doesn't necessitate that thing being a benevolent god. The cause could be some a fart in the fabric of reality. The universe being created doesn't imply any design or purpose.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But it doesn't necessitate that thing being a benevolent god. The cause could be some a fart in the fabric of reality. The universe being created doesn't imply any design or purpose.

    The Kalam Argument simply proves (again, without any shred of doubt no matter what anyone might try and tell you) the existence of God. It doesn't necessarily prove a particular conception of God.
    No.​

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •