The KCA!

[POI]

For Debate: Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument provide sound reasoning for the assertion of a 'prime mover'? If so, does it happen to say anything about what this "prime mover" could even be? If the KCA is instead not good reasoning at all, please explain why?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

This is the argument (which has been beaten to death in previous threads, but why not debunk it again?):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise 1 is a guess. We don't actually know this to be true. In fact, it will be a large dose of special pleading when anyone asks how God gets around this. i.e. they will claim with all authority (and no evidence) that God "always existed". Ok, so why can't other things always exist then?

Premise 2 is a claim based on more guessing. We don't actually know how the energy that makes up our universe began or even if it 'began'. Like the apologists favorite god concept, it may simply have always existed. In fact, our scientific observations show that energy cannot be destroyed and we have a 'law' called the law of conservation of energy that applies to all closed systems.

Thus the conclusion of 3 is based on 2 false (not supported by any evidence) premises and we get the classic 'garbage in, garbage out' type of logical argument that sounds fancy, but lives or dies based on the validity of its premises.

Even if the premises can be shown to be true, we do not arrive at a god. We just arrive at a something.

WLC absolutely loves to interject (with absolutely no evidence other than faith bias) that this 'something' is a loving, personal, God. Shockingly, when you put something into the premises of your logical argument, it falls right out the bottom regardless of the truth value of the premises.

[POI]

This is the argument (which has been beaten to death in previous threads, but why not debunk it again?):

This thread was created for one person, who begged me to do so. We_Are_Venom, oops, I mean SinCe_1985

[historia]

Premise 1 is a guess. We don't actually know this to be true.

Premise 1 not a "guess," it's an argument to the best explanation.

If by "know" here you mean having 100% certainty, then we don't "know" anything outside of mathematical proofs and logical axioms. In other words, most things -- including all of science and history -- are not "known."

In fact, it will be a large dose of special pleading when anyone asks how God gets around this. i.e. they will claim with all authority (and no evidence) that God "always existed". Ok, so why can't other things always exist then?

What other things?

Premise 2 is a claim based on more guessing. We don't actually know how the energy that makes up our universe began or even if it 'began'.

Again, Premise 2 is an argument to the best explanation. Retreating to "we don't know this" is not a defeater of the argument, it's a cop out.

In fact, our scientific observations show that energy cannot be destroyed and we have a 'law' called the law of conservation of energy that applies to all closed systems.

And that demonstrates what?

Thus the conclusion of 3 is based on 2 false (not supported by any evidence) premises

There is, indeed, evidence to support Premise 1 and 2, which is reflected in the scholarly literature of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. You went from "we don't know this," to "there is no evidence," a bit of a rhetorical slight-of-hand.

Even if the premises can be shown to be true, we do not arrive at a god. We just arrive at a something.

Indeed "a god" cannot explain premise 1 and 2. God, however, can.

WLC absolutely loves to interject (with absolutely no evidence other than faith bias) that this 'something' is a loving, personal, God.

You'll have to substantiate this claim with evidence, as I don't believe William Lane Craig has ever claimed that the KCA shows God is "loving."

[benchwarmer]

Premise 1 is a guess. We don't actually know this to be true.

Premise 1 not a "guess," it's an argument to the best explanation.

If by "know" here you mean having 100% certainty, then we don't "know" anything outside of mathematical proofs and logical axioms. In other words, most things -- including all of science and history -- are not "known."

Then I suggest premise 1 be changed to:

1. Everything that begins to exist may have a cause.

As stated, the premise assumes 100%.

In fact, it will be a large dose of special pleading when anyone asks how God gets around this. i.e. they will claim with all authority (and no evidence) that God "always existed". Ok, so why can't other things always exist then?

What other things?

Anything! Energy. The universe. i.e. anything we don't know the origin of.

Premise 2 is a claim based on more guessing. We don't actually know how the energy that makes up our universe began or even if it 'began'.

Again, Premise 2 is an argument to the best explanation. Retreating to "we don't know this" is not a defeater of the argument, it's a cop out.

These premises are put down hoping nobody really looks too closely at them (or as you are hoping some will buy 'best explanation').

If we go with your take, premise 2 should be:

2. The universe may have begun to exist

In fact, our scientific observations show that energy cannot be destroyed and we have a 'law' called the law of conservation of energy that applies to all closed systems.

And that demonstrates what?

Apologies, my incomplete stating of the law of conservation of energy was missing the most crucial part. You are correct, my partial stating of the law is a head scratcher in regards to relevance.

In full:
The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Hopefully my correct stating makes it obvious (the part in bold should be clearly relevant).

Thus the conclusion of 3 is based on 2 false (not supported by any evidence) premises

There is, indeed, evidence to support Premise 1 and 2, which is reflected in the scholarly literature of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. You went from "we don't know this," to "there is no evidence," a bit of a rhetorical slight-of-hand.

Scientific evidence? Care to share?

It's ironic you correctly point out what may have been bad form on my part, yet don't see this sleight of hand in the KCA premises.

Even if the premises can be shown to be true, we do not arrive at a god. We just arrive at a something.

Indeed "a god" cannot explain premise 1 and 2. God, however, can.

So just claim it and it's true?

WLC absolutely loves to interject (with absolutely no evidence other than faith bias) that this 'something' is a loving, personal, God.

You'll have to substantiate this claim with evidence, as I don't believe William Lane Craig has ever claimed that the KCA shows God is "loving."

Apologies, you are correct, I retract that. I could have swore I heard that. You are right, he only says 'personal' from what I could find upon researching it again.

I must say, this is much more refreshing debate that we usually get here. I don't mind being called out and corrected and find it so much nicer than just the usual faith based denial or misrepresentation of what science says.

[SiNcE_1985]

For Debate: Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument provide sound reasoning for the assertion of a 'prime mover'? If so, does it happen to say anything about what this "prime mover" could even be? If the KCA is instead not good reasoning at all, please explain why?

.

As I said before..

The time has come..

To relieve this pain..

Which, will be better for me..

But not so enjoyable...for you.

For Debate: Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument provide sound reasoning for the assertion of a 'prime mover'?

Yes.

If so, does it happen to say anything about what this "prime mover" could even be?

Yes.

If the KCA is instead not good reasoning at all, please explain why?

Are you gonna coax us to explain why it is?

As BW laid out..


1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

What does this mean? This means that things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing. That is literally what this first premise is claiming. This statement is universally accepted by everyone, and I'll wait for anyone who has the guts to deny P1. It goes without saying, and I'll gladly wait for any of you to challenge this premise because it will show just how much the intellectual price is for atheism.


2. The universe began to exist.

By "universe" we mean all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM).

How can we "know" this?

A. Arguments against Infinite Regression: If the universe is infinite, then the past is eternal. But the past can't be eternal? Why not? Because if the past was eternal, there would have been an infinite amount of "yesterdays" that would need to be traversed, in order to arrive at today.

But you cannot traverse an infinite amount of points to arrive at any given point. For example, if I told you have a billion dollars waiting for you...but here is the catch, you have to walk an infinite amount of steps to get the money? Would you ever get the money (regardless of how long you lived)? No.

So, if you'll never get the money by traversing an infinite of steps, how can you arrive at today if you traverse an infinite amount of days?

That is how we can know for certain that the past cannot be eternal. If time itself can't be eternal, then neither can the universe. Why not?

1. An infinite past cannot exist .
2. Therefore, the universe cannot have an infinite past.
3. Therefore, the universe could not have existed for infinite amount of time.
4. Anything that exists, that cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time, MUST have began to exist.

Therefore, the universe began to exist.

Because of that^.


B. Second Law of Thermodynamics: We know that the amount of useable energy in our universe is running out. What is usable energy?

"Usable energy" in the universe refers to energy that can be readily harnessed and converted to perform work, essentially meaning energy in a concentrated form that can be utilized for processes like powering life or driving mechanical systems; this typically contrasts with more dispersed, low-quality energy like heat radiating from a star into space, which is considered less "usable" due to its low potential for work."

or..

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/what-is-energy/

The useable energy in our universe is finite...and we are running out of it every day. The universe is an isolated system, meaning no new energy is coming in, and no energy is leaving. We have all we are gonna get, and we are running out.

If it is running out, and it hasn't run out yet, that means it couldn't have been running forever (on an infinite clock).

You know if you see a cup of hot coffee on the table, the coffee wasn't sitting on the table hot forever. You know if a car is running of fuel, that it hasn't been running on that fuel forever.

That's how it works.

3. Observations from the universe: What about observational evidence?

C. Hubble Expansion: Edwin Hubble discovered the red shift of galaxies, meaning that the galaxies are red shifted as they are moving away from us. The red shift has the same "doppler effect" that sound waves gives us. As sound waves gets closer to us, the waves get larger...but as the waves get further, they get smaller.

With the red shift, as the light travels away from us, the light is shifted to the red in of the spectrum...as the light gets closers, it is the reverse effect; a blue shift.

Hubble observed the galaxies moving away from us were all red shifted, meaning that the light was moving further away from us as space was/is expanding.

Well, if space and matter are getting further and further away from us as we tally along in the future, then it follows that space and matter get closer and closer if we rewind the clock to the past....and you follow that trajectory into the past, all space and matter will be condensed into a single point, known as a singularity.

The expansion of this singularity point some 13.7 billion years ago is known as the Big Bang. Currently, the Big Bang model has the most empirical data supporting it than any other cosmological model, and is the prevailing view in cosmology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang# ... l_evidence

And lastly, what I'll say about it is this,

You can tell just how strong the implications for the Big Bang theory is, based on how many attempts have been made to debunk it by postulating various other models (and cosmologists have been trying hardddd)...primarily the Steady State theory, and Oscillating Models (back then)...and Quantum Gravity and String Theory models today (and any other Pre-Big Bang scenario).

None of those models can past either the observation/experiment tests, and none can be used as a defeater of the arguments against infinity.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Remember, the beginning of the universe entails a beginning of STEM.

So, logically, you cannot use STEM to explain the origins of STEM...which means that no causal explanation or agent of STEM could have possess any attribute of STEM (except energy, but it would be a different kind of energy).

Since Space was created with the universe, the cause of physical space could not be spatial.

1. God is not made up of matter that would occupy space. God is spirit. (John 4:24).

Since matter was created with the universe, the cause of physical matter could not be material.

2. Again, God is not made up of material substance (John 4:24).

Since time was created with the universe, the initiator of time could not be temporal (until time was initiated).

3. God was timeless (atemporal) (Ps 90:1-2).

Since physical energy was created with the universe, the creator of physical energy could not be a product of physical energy.

4. A non-physical energy needs to be postulated here, in order to explain the effect of a physical energy that began to exist.

Since we know that the universe (STEM) was created at X moment in time, this causal agent had to have a will to create at X moment, and not Y moment..and we need not overlook the necessity of a "will" to create...which can be expanded on if need be.

5. God obviously had a will to create (Gen 1:1)

Since we know that a will (intent) was necessary to create, this causal agent must have a mind.

6. God has a mind (1Corin 2:16)

Since we know from previously discussed 10^10^123, the mathematical order and precision needed to create for life to exist...with all of the specified complexity, order, function, and PURPOSE we find in the universe, we know that this causal agent had to be extremely, extremely intelligent.

7. God orchestrated the affairs of the universe (Ps 8:3-4).

Since we know that the STEM began to exist from a point of no STEM, we know that the creator of STEM had to be extremely power.

8. God is Almighty, and it doesn't get any more powerful than that (Rev 1:8)

So, in closing...I've demonstrated that every attribute of power, knowledge, and essence required for our universe to begin to exist, especially in the way that we know it does...The Biblical Christian God had been always said to possess those attributes, thousands of years before any scientific discovery, or revolution.

I also understand that those attributes can be applied to any deity of any religion, but im applying it to mines.

That's all I got...and all I need.

[benchwarmer]

As I said before..

The time has come..

To relieve this pain..

Which, will be better for me..

But not so enjoyable...for you.

Do you honestly think bravado and bluster is convincing to anyone?

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

What does this mean? This means that things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing.

And your God?

Cue special pleading in 3... 2... 1...

That is literally what this first premise is claiming. This statement is universally accepted by everyone, and I'll wait for anyone who has the guts to deny P1. It goes without saying, and I'll gladly wait for any of you to challenge this premise because it will show just how much the intellectual price is for atheism.

Denied. See my response to historia.

A premise that makes more sense is:

1. Everything that begins to exist may have a cause.

Unfortunately, that won't cause what proponents of the KCA want to drop out of the bottom of the syllogism.

2. The universe began to exist.

By "universe" we mean all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM).

How can we "know" this?

A. Arguments against Infinite Regression: If the universe is infinite, then the past is eternal. But the past can't be eternal? Why not? Because if the past was eternal, there would have been an infinite amount of "yesterdays" that would need to be traversed, in order to arrive at today.

Let's go with this and your likely claim that your God is eternal and always existed (surely you have to agree with that bit of special pleading to make this all work).

When did God decide to create the universe then? How did He get to the point of deciding/doing it if a given point in time can never be reached with an infinite number of yesterdays?

Let me guess, more special pleading in 3... 2... 1....

So basically we are dead in the water at premise 1. You have to assume things not in evidence and/or start special pleading fallacies as soon as we ask how your God can get around all your reasons.

In essence, the 'prime mover' if such a thing exists, could just be the energy that makes up our universe. It may have eternally existed (like your God) and at some point created our current universe (like your God).

So basically God is just an extra unneeded step to this line of thinking.

I think it's far better to say the intellectually honest thing "I don't know" and let's keep collecting data until we find out for sure.

[POI]

As I said before.. The time has come.. To relieve this pain.. Which, will be better for me.. But not so enjoyable...for you.

All this huffing and puffing.... For what exactly? I already told you, long ago, IF you were actually able to demonstrate a prime mover, it would be little to no consequence, as I have already explained how there is a vast difference between deism vs theism. The KCA, at absolute best for the pro-creation-side, is able to get us to deism. Things quickly fall apart after this point. But let's see what'za got...

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

What does this mean? This means that things don't pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing. That is literally what this first premise is claiming. This statement is universally accepted by everyone, and I'll wait for anyone who has the guts to deny P1. It goes without saying, and I'll gladly wait for any of you to challenge this premise because it will show just how much the intellectual price is for atheism.

Cutting to the chase, and to move things rapidly along, let's go with what you say above. The universe was caused. Okay, by what? And what caused that? And what caused that? etc etc etc etc......................... Until you reach special pleading.... (i.e.) The "uncaused cause" (ala Aquinas and friends).

However, since no one has any wordly clue what happened prior to the BB, all you could postulate is there exists a 'universe starter'. Wee!

2. The universe began to exist.

By "universe" we mean all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM).

How can we "know" this?

We don't 'know' this. There instead exists models. None of them are proven. Sorry.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014P ... 20geometry.

The eternal universe theory, also known as eternal inflation, is a cosmological model that suggests the universe is infinite and has no beginning or end:

Explanation:
The theory states that the universe's inflationary phase began with a quantum fluctuation in a pre-existing region of space-time and continues forever. This expansion is exponential, so most of the universe's volume is always inflating.

Pocket universes:
As the universe inflates, it creates "pocket universes" where inflation ends. These pocket universes are expanding at the speed of light, but the space between them is expanding even faster. This means that the pocket universes will never collide or interact with each other.

Life:
While each pocket universe will eventually die, life will continue to exist eternally across the multiverse.

****************************************

We can consider yours too... But to state the topic is settled, would be a lie. It is either like you argue, or it is instead like arguing what is north of the North Pole and/or attempting to ask what is colder than absolute zero? Meaning, to ask what came before becomes a nonsensible question.

I'll stop here to see where we are at this point....

[SiNcE_1985]

Do you honestly think bravado and bluster is convincing to anyone?

And your God?

Cue special pleading in 3... 2... 1...

Um, the premise is: everything that begins to exist has a cause.

When you can provide sound/valid reasons as to why God could have allegedly began to exist, then we'll revisit your "special pleading" charge.

Until then, deal with the reasons presented as to why the universe began to exist.

Denied. See my response to historia.

A premise that makes more sense is:

1. Everything that begins to exist may have a cause.

Hmm. You go outside and find a brick has been used to smash through the windshield of your car.

You call the police to report it and they say..

"I don't know, BW. The brick through your windshield, it may have a cause...but at the same time, it may not have a cause. There is nothing we can do. Because we just don't know."

All things equal, if you didn't have an axe to grind as you are protecting your atheistic belief..in the real world, you wouldn't accept that answer.

And if you wouldn't accept it then, then there is no reason to accept it now.

Unfortunately, that won't cause what proponents of the KCA want to drop out of the bottom of the syllogism.

Because, it'll take an equally logical argument to cause us to drop out of the bottom of the syllogism.

Not an illogical one.

Let's go with this and your likely claim that your God is eternal and always existed (surely you have to agree with that bit of special pleading to make this all work).

When did God decide to create the universe then? How did He get to the point of deciding/doing it if a given point in time can never be reached with an infinite number of yesterdays?

He had an eternal will to create the universe...so this will never began.

Let me guess, more special pleading in 3... 2... 1....

It can't be special pleading considering the universe had no will at all...so there is no "favoring" one will over the other, which is what is required for there to be a legitimate charge of special pleading.

Next..

So basically we are dead in the water at premise 1. You have to assume things not in evidence and/or start special pleading fallacies as soon as we ask how your God can get around all your reasons.

Looks like my God are around those reasons, and beyond.

In essence, the 'prime mover' if such a thing exists, could just be the energy that makes up our universe. It may have eternally existed (like your God) and at some point created our current universe (like your God).

I've already stated why that can't be the case. You gotta deal with the argumentation.

Conveniently ignoring it won't make it go away and all it does is make me conclude that the argument is strong and ain't nothing you can say against it.

So basically God is just an extra unneeded step to this line of thinking.

I think it's far better to say the intellectually honest thing "I don't know" and let's keep collecting data until we find out for sure.

If we say we don't know, we'll be lying.

If you say you don't know, it's because you'd rather not know.

[historia]

Premise 1 is a guess. We don't actually know this to be true.

Premise 1 not a "guess," it's an argument to the best explanation.

If by "know" here you mean having 100% certainty, then we don't "know" anything outside of mathematical proofs and logical axioms. In other words, most things -- including all of science and history -- are not "known."

Then I suggest premise 1 be changed to:

1. Everything that begins to exist may have a cause.

As stated, the premise assumes 100%.

. . .

If we go with your take, premise 2 should be:

2. The universe may have begun to exist

I don't believe either of these premises assumes we have 100% certainty -- anymore than saying "the earth is 4.5 billion years old" or (to go back to an example from one of our earlier conversations) that "George Washington crossed the Delaware River on December 25, 1776," assumes 100% certainly. We almost never have 100% certainty when making philosophical, scientific, or historical statements, and it would be tedious to preface each one saying so.

Arguments to the best explanation also lead us to the conclusion that something is most probable or most likely, rather than simply what "may" be so. To that end, if you want to rephrase the above as:

1. Everything that begins to exist most likely has a cause.
2. The universe most likely began to exist

Then I think that's not an unfair emendation. Since the first premise is so well supported by our experience as well as sound philosophical arguments, however, it seems hardly controversial to drop the "most likely" caveat on that particular point.

In fact, it will be a large dose of special pleading when anyone asks how God gets around this. i.e. they will claim with all authority (and no evidence) that God "always existed". Ok, so why can't other things always exist then?

What other things?

Anything!

Anything? How about toasters?

I don't think anyone is claiming that other things can or can't always exist. The issue is whether we have good reasons to think they have always existed. That's just as true of toasters as the universe itself.

These premises are put down hoping nobody really looks too closely at them (or as you are hoping some will buy 'best explanation').

I'm sorry, my friend, but this is just a fallacious argument, aimed at impugning the motives of others.

Modern proponents of the KCA, like William Lane Craig, have written whole books and dozens of journal articles in peer-reviewed philosophy journals detailing philosophical arguments and scientific evidence in support of the KCA, as well as addressing objections to it. Clearly, one doesn't do that if they are hoping others won't "look too closely" at the premises.

In fact, our scientific observations show that energy cannot be destroyed and we have a 'law' called the law of conservation of energy that applies to all closed systems.

And that demonstrates what?

Apologies, my incomplete stating of the law of conservation of energy was missing the most crucial part. You are correct, my partial stating of the law is a head scratcher in regards to relevance.

In full:
The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Hopefully my correct stating makes it obvious (the part in bold should be clearly relevant).

Okay, but, as you noted above, the law of conversation of energy concerns the total energy within a closed system. It doesn't apply to or place any constraints on what can or can't happen when the closed system is brought into being in the first place.

This is like saying that, because it's illegal in the United States to rebel against the government, the United States itself couldn't have come into existence via a rebellion. Obviously, the laws that apply within the United States after its founding don't constrain how it was founded. The same is true of the universe.

Thus the conclusion of 3 is based on 2 false (not supported by any evidence) premises

There is, indeed, evidence to support Premise 1 and 2, which is reflected in the scholarly literature of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. You went from "we don't know this," to "there is no evidence," a bit of a rhetorical slight-of-hand.

Scientific evidence? Care to share?

Have you read the scholarly literature on the KCA? It provides quite a bit of scientific evidence.

It's ironic you correctly point out what may have been bad form on my part, yet don't see this sleight of hand in the KCA premises.

What "sleight of hand" are you referring to?

Even if the premises can be shown to be true, we do not arrive at a god. We just arrive at a something.

Indeed "a god" cannot explain premise 1 and 2. God, however, can.

So just claim it and it's true?

This is simply a matter of definitions. "A god" denotes a being that came into existence within the created order, so cannot be the cause of the universe itself. Where as "God" denotes the Supreme Being that, should he exist, can cause the universe.