Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 2039
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #1

Post by historia »

From another thread:
alexxcJRO wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:38 am
There are multiple fallacies and problems with the KALAM.

. . .

Firstly,

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause".
There is some uncertainty to whether the radioactive decay of an atom or virtual particles have any causes for their beginning. They may be exceptions. Freedom of will conform the religious is real and therefore has uncaused components. Therefore the first premise is bogus.

Secondly,

Our understanding of causality is based on recombination of pre-existing stuff, entities and properties (material cause), which does not apply for divine creation. Therefore there is an equivocation fallacy here as well.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Here he refers to material cause recombination of pre-existing stuff.
"The universe has a cause." Here he refers to divine creation-ex nihilo.

Thirdly,

He makes the fallacy of composition.
If things inside the universe(multiverse or whatever) begin to exist or have a cause for their existence does not mean the universe(multiverse or whatever) itself began to exists or have a cause for it's existence.
The fabric of Space-Time is probably finite and necessarily has a beginning state of minimum entropy(Singularity) and possibly an end state of maximum entropy(Heat Death).
The fabric of Space-time may be just a thing inside the universe(multiverse or whatever).

Fourthly,

We have also the fallacy of single cause.
The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy,[1] is a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an
outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

There may be that the fabric of Space-Time(this thing inside universe(multiverse or whatever) or the universe(multiverse or whatever) itself was caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Fifthly,
Scientists don't know what happened before plank time.
So all this talk is irrelevant and highly speculative.
The reality there is a gap in our knowledge.
Using this gap to make an argument for God just makes one guilty of the fallacy: argument from ignorance and plays right into the God of the Gaps.
Question for debate: Is alexxcJRO correct that the kalam cosmological argument suffers from these various logical fallacies?

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Is the kalam cosmological argument fallacious?

Post #31

Post by alexxcJRO »

David the apologist wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:04 pm but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.
Q: Is this subjective ponderings(just a hypothesis) of Matt Strassler or there is empirical experiments done to show this?
David the apologist wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:04 pm That means that while any indeterminate quantum event - such as the precise time a radioactive nucleus decays - is not determined by the action of any cause, it is produced by the action of some agent or other - which, on my "thin" notion of "causation as production," suffices to preserve causality.
Q: What action of some agent or other? Who says this, you? Another just exercise of imagination, subjective pondering?

I asked for empirical experiments. So please provide some.
Saying that "measurements" are causal(subjective pondering) or other such ponderings does not cut it.
Observation:
Also because of the Uncertainty principle you cannot know that is true that “Everything that begins to exists has a cause to its existence”. Therefore again you cannot say conclusion is true because premises are true.
You would have to be omniscient.
But wait omniscience is a logically impossible because no being can really know if it really knows everything.
“Everything is ” or “All is” or “Never is” or “Nothing is” this all very bold claims one arrogantly claims to know when in reality cannot know.
The sayings “Never say never”, “Wise man doubts while the fool is certain” are pretty wise and the religious should consider.

Observation: For the readers: I do not have a belief that virtual particles and atomic decay are uncaused but I am skeptic of both claims so far until empirical evidence is presented.
David the apologist wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:04 pm The constant shifting of amplitude can be explained in terms of subatomic forces (which are causal), and the measurement process is manifestly an interaction, so I'm not sure what part of the situation you think is/could be non-causal.
Q: Is this another subjective pondering(just a hypothesis) or there is empirical experiments done to show this?

David the apologist wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:04 pm If we replace every instance of "causation" with "production," you will see that your thinking is a muddle.

I am not saying that "every event was determined by a prior event." I am saying that "every event is the action of an agent, or a result thereof."

Since the two propositions are distinct, and the latter does not strictly imply the former, I see no reason why indeterminism should shake our assent to the first premise.
“Indeterminism is the idea that events are not caused, or not caused deterministically. It is the opposite of determinism and related to chance. “
When I use indeterminism I meant uncaused as supported by the definition.

Q: What do you mean by indeterminism?

If an agent chooses an action not because of a prior event, his choice are not contingent of the past events how does he chooses?

Q: Are u saying its random but not uncaused? Explain.

My opinion. Maybe I don't get something.

Partially, subjectively random means hard to predict but deterministic.
Completely, objectively random are impossible to predict therefore non-deterministic.

A completely random or objectively random event is uncaused.
Free will in order to exist needs to be completely, objectively random.




David the apologist wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:04 pm My argument only makes reference to efficient causes and is neutral to material causes. Adding content to the premise that I didn't assert is a strawman.
Q: What do you mean? The argument says cause.
“Everything that begins to exist has a cause.”
Is does not says efficient cause.
Q: Why it does not says efficient cause then, huh? Why keep it vague?
I am curious. Please explain. :)
David the apologist wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:04 pm Wow, that is an imprecise way of saying things.
“Alice and Bob, the stars of so many thought experiments, are cooking dinner when mishaps ensue. Alice accidentally drops a plate; the sound startles Bob, who burns himself on the stove and cries out. In another version of events, Bob burns himself and cries out, causing Alice to drop a plate.
Over the last decade, quantum physicists have been exploring the implications of a strange realization: In principle, both versions of the story can happen at once. That is, events can occur in an indefinite causal order, where both “A causes B” and “B causes A” are simultaneously true.
“It sounds outrageous,” admitted Časlav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna.
The possibility follows from the quantum phenomenon known as superposition, where particles maintain all possible realities simultaneously until the moment they’re measured. In labs in Austria, China, Australia and elsewhere, physicists observe indefinite causal order by putting a particle of light (called a photon) in a superposition of two states. They then subject one branch of the superposition to process A followed by process B, and subject the other branch to B followed by A. In this procedure, known as the quantum switch, A’s outcome influences what happens in B, and vice versa; the photon experiences both causal orders simultaneously.”

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20210311/

Indefinite causality
“Causality is a concept deeply rooted in our understanding of the world and lies at the basis of the very notion of time. It plays an essential role in our cognition — enabling us to make predictions, determine the causes of certain events, and choose the appropriate actions to achieve our goals. But even in quantum mechanics, for which countless measurements and preparations have been rethought, the assumption of pre-existing causal structure has never been challenged — until now.
Giulia Rubino and colleagues have designed an experiment to show that causal order can be genuinely indefinite. By creating wires between a pair of operating gates whose geometry is controlled by a quantum switch — the state of single photon — they realized a superposition of gate orders. From the output, they measured the so-called causal witness, which specifies whether a given process is causally ordered or not. The result brings a new set of questions to the fore — namely, where does causal order come from, and is it a necessary property of nature? “

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys4134


David the apologist wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:04 pm Refuted by the constant change we experience, and the fact that only one of these four dimensions is associated with strict laws governing the "shape" of events. Whatever is going on, change is real, and time is more than just "different space."

On Eternalism this supposed constant change we experience is just an illusion.
You whole argument rests on it does not feel right, it feels intuitively, I can’t imagine, it can’t be possible. On subjective ponderings and argument from lack of imagination and ignorance.
Boring.
David the apologist wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:04 pm Nobody. But, every beginning of existence is an event. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the beginning of the universe's existence is an event. And since events are the actions of agents, it follows that the universe was caused to begin to exist.

I suppose you could try and argue that the universe began to exist outside of the universe, in which case we have strong evidence that at least one extra-universal event occurred.
Said maybe in a multiverse universes are produced by causes(not supernatural) in a timeless fashion.(not event but more a happening so to speak).
When I think of an event I think things happening in time.
We may have physical as in material, natural but not space-time continuum physical as oppose to immaterial, supernatural, non-natural, magical as multiple causes(that may be sentient(hive mind or not) or not that are nor made of what u think of as physical.
It may well be that the multiverse(in which many universes(space-time continuum and the like)exist) which is the ultimate reality or the cacaverse(if the multivers exists in a cacaverse) and so on which is the ultimate reality is uncaused as the first cause.
David the apologist wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:04 pm Then why all the kicking and screaming to avoid an obvious conclusion from obvious premises?
False dichotomy fallacy. Naturalism true or exists an “uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful”.
Naturalism being false does not necessarily make KALAM therefore true.
Please don’t evade:
If one refers as the "universe" the multiverse in which many universes(space-time continuum and the like)exist or the cacaverse if the multiverse exists in a cacaverse then one still has the problem of one cause fallacy.
Maybe we have a first causes. The first movers. The primodial causers. As in plural.
We may have multiple non-physical causes as immaterial, supernatural, non-natural, magical.
Therefore having a single cause for the existence of the universe is bogus. 8-)
David the apologist wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:04 pm "It's a PDF. Scroll down."
The conclusion of your text says: "Only in one case the singularities of space-time may be removed, and it is when we consider the effects of back-reaction of matter on space-time in the Bohmian framework. These results are obtained in the framework of BQM in which the definition of trajectory is possible. Otherwise, it was not possible to get these results through the SQM."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.08010.pdf
"Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations."
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html

Q: So what sensationalist media?
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Post Reply