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]

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

I disagree here. "Most likely" hasn't been established has it? "May" and "Most likely" are NOT the same thing.

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.

I'm not sure our experience really supports it other than in an unscientific "seems like it" kind of way.

i.e. You bring up the example of a toaster. At what point does the collection of atoms (which are just energy in a given form) that make up a toaster "begin to exist" as a toaster? At the end of the day, everything we observe is a form of energy. We don't know where this energy came from. I'm willing to grant that. We don't know if this energy began to exist or if it has always followed what we currently observe in that it can't be created or destroyed. i.e. it may have always existed.

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.

It's aimed squarely at coming up with a syllogism with possibly faulty premises.

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.

Sure, and when problems are found with these premises do we detail this when presenting the argument in an apologetics setting?

Fair point that presenting this argument in a more rigorous setting one does expect others to pick it apart and review it.

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.

I think you mean "may not apply". We don't know. What we do know is that in our closed system it applies as far as we can tell.

Scientific evidence? Care to share?

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

I found this summary:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosm ... -argument/

I haven't found any peer reviewed science on the subject. Only peer reviewed philosophy.

I see science mentioned, but the KCA is not a scientific theory, but philosophy. That doesn't mean it's worthless, just not what I was asking for. Is there any peer reviewed science that supports the premises in the KCA?

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?

Using the language "has a cause" which is a positive statement about something we don't really know. Which is why I propose "may have a cause". I understand my stating of the premises kind of destroys the argument in that it doesn't really end up with what the original is trying to get at.

In other words, the first premise is not giving any probability or any indication that we don't actually know this as a fact. It may be a 'best' explanation/guess, but it is still just that. At the end of the day, we don't have the data to really say since we can't tell regarding the energy in this universe.

The point is, that as soon as one admits the premise isn't entirely solid, the rest of the argument kind of loses steam since whatever is in the premises falls out the bottom.

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.

How do you know it isn't a group of "Gods" if such things of this type exist? Just simple definition?

What if the universe did indeed have a cause, but it wasn't "God", but just the way the energy that makes up our universe behaves? Again, we don't know and simply defining things does not, and cannot, poof something into existence.

[POI]

A paragraph of irrelevancy.

Not only is it relevant, but it speaks to your epistemology. You are just hoping I move on. If it does not make sense to you, that does not mean the model becomes debunked. Models exist arguing both A) an absolute beginning B) No beginning. Right? Science is still hashing it out. Unlike some fields for which they are not still hashing it out, as it is empirical. But since that empirical position does not side with your pre-existing position, you reject it. You have planted your flag firmly on the side which supports your pre-existing position. And yet, these positions are not resolved, like they are in other arenas in which are. I'm instead stating: 'let's wait and see if either side ever becomes theoretical.'

Most physicists dont make good philosophers.

This response addresses nothing I said here. My point here is that your pushback here has either a) already been addressed, or, b) would never have been expressed since the pushback is not relevant to the claim.

Judging from your exchange in other threads, I say it's likely option b).

"Alan Guth's 2007 paper, "Eternal inflation and its implications",[3] states that under reasonable assumptions "Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past."

What part of that don't you understand?

That was 2007, the debate was in 2014. These silly rascals change their minds all the time. Why? Because it is not solved. The overarching point is that you are firmly planting your flag upon a position which is most certainly not settled among the experts which study this topic.

Case/point: While Alan Guth's inflationary universe theory doesn't explicitly state our universe came from a previous one, it does open the door to the possibility of a multiverse, suggesting that our universe could be one of many "bubbles" forming from a larger, potentially eternal inflationary field, which could be interpreted as implying a "previous" universe in a sense; however, he doesn't definitively claim this as the case and the exact nature of such a "previous" universe remains highly speculative.

If Alan Guth's position above is right, then what you stated prior may be wrong, when you stated --> (Post 27) "Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing ...I'm arguing that this casual chain STARTED where the BB began. That's what I'm doing."

I suggest that when you agree to a debate with someone, you deal with the arguments that is presented.

I'm dealing with the fact that this topic is still debated among real scientists. And you want to plant your flag on one side. You do this regardless of whether or not the topic is actually resolved. When it is resolved, and it does not correlate with your wanted side, you then state 'science is evil'. It speaks to your disingenuous epistemology. I instead happily admit the universe may have had a beginning, or not. I do not know and neither does science. And if it did, we would only reach blind deism AT BEST. You see the difference?

Sure, whatever you say.

I'll take the W there. And here, no one can take the W, unless you wish to write a peer reviewed paper to be the be-all-end-all in the field of cosmology. I'll wait....

[SiNcE_1985]

Not only is it relevant, but it speaks to your epistemology. You are just hoping I move on. If it does not make sense to you, that does not mean the model becomes debunked. Models exist arguing both A) an absolute beginning B) No beginning. Right? Science is still hashing it out. Unlike some fields for which they are not still hashing it out, as it is empirical. But since that empirical position does not side with your pre-existing position, you reject it. You have planted your flag firmly on the side which supports your pre-existing position. And yet, these positions are not resolved, like they are in other arenas in which are. I'm instead stating: 'let's wait and see if either side ever becomes theoretical.'

The argument against infinite regression is independent of physics.

I've said this at least 3 times, and there's nothing you can say that'll make what I said not true.

You tried bringing up quantum fluctuations, which didn't get you anywhere, as you had nothing to say against my response.

And here you are again with an irrelevant, nothing-to-do-with-my-argument, response.

This response addresses nothing I said here. My point here is that your pushback here has either a) already been addressed, or, b) would never have been expressed since the pushback is not relevant to the claim.

Judging from your exchange in other threads, I say it's likely option b).

You've spent the entire exchange either..

1. Offering weak objections.
2. Not addressing the argument at all.

So, the irony.

Second, reading comprehension.

You had made the point "as if physicists haven't thought about infinite regression".

My point was, most scientists don't make good philosophers...meaning, since they aren't good philosophers, they wouldn't be hip to the philosophical problems with their models.

Because after all, book smarts doesn't necessarily equate to street smarts...and vice versa.

Get it now?

That was 2007, the debate was in 2014. These silly rascals change their minds all the time. Why? Because it is not solved. The overarching point is that you are firmly planting your flag upon a position which is most certainly not settled among the experts which study this topic.

Case/point: While Alan Guth's inflationary universe theory doesn't explicitly state our universe came from a previous one, it does open the door to the possibility of a multiverse, suggesting that our universe could be one of many "bubbles" forming from a larger, potentially eternal inflationary field, which could be interpreted as implying a "previous" universe in a sense; however, he doesn't definitively claim this as the case and the exact nature of such a "previous" universe remains highly speculative.

If Alan Guth's position above is right, then what you stated prior may be wrong, when you stated --> (Post 27) "Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing ...I'm arguing that this casual chain STARTED where the BB began. That's what I'm doing."

Well, let me put it to you this way...let's say that Guth changed his mind and is now a believer of a past eternal universe, because of his perceived scientific reasons.

In a universe full of change, motion, and unquestionably time..there is no possible way that this universe could have endured an infinite amount of moments into its past.

This is a philosophical problem; and there is no natural law, scientist, or mathematician that can get you squared circles, married bachelors, one-sided sticks, or infinite regression.

You'll just have to concede that no such things exist...as that is why you dropped the whole quantum fluctuations thing, because there is nothing can say against my response.
....

But getting back to Guth (and even Carroll)..there is a difference between..

1. Proposing a cosmological model.

2. Having actual evidence for the theory which reflects reality.

Anyone can propose anything.

But if it isn't back by evidence, then all you have is conjecture.

Most models (practically all), have no empirical evidence supporting them.

Now, I'm no physicists, and don't claim to understand how those models work.

But, I don't need to know how they work...because all I need to know is how they DON'T work.

And no model is capable of solving the problem of infinite regression.

None.

So they don't work.

If you think otherwise, pick your favorite one, and we'll put it in the infinite regression BLENDER and watch it get destroyed with my argument against infinity.

This, is in fact, a challenge.

I'm dealing with the fact that this topic is still debated among real scientists. And you want to plant your flag on one side. You do this regardless of whether or not the topic is actually resolved. When it is resolved, and it does not correlate with your wanted side, you then state 'science is evil'. It speaks to your disingenuous epistemology. I instead happily admit the universe may have had a beginning, or not. I do not know and neither does science. And if it did, we would only reach blind deism AT BEST. You see the difference?

I'm no longer entertaining irrelevant tirades.

Stick to the argument.

I'll take the W there. And here, no one can take the W, unless you wish to write a peer reviewed paper to be the be-all-end-all in the field of cosmology. I'll wait....

You can take the W involving anything that doesn't have to do with the argument I presented.

I'm not defending those pennies.

I'm defending the dollar bills (my argument).

I'll leave the pennies for you...you can have those...they are of no value to me.

But what you are not gonna do is take my dollars.

Those pennies makes noise when you drop them.

But I like that silenttt money.

[POI]

The argument against infinite regression is independent of physics.

We are discussing the KCA. All the KCA attempts to 'demonstrate' is that the universe had a cause. And my position here is that IF the universe did indeed (begin to exist), that cause could have also been from nature and not supernature. Why? Debate postulates that our universe sprung from a prior universe. However, since we do not know if there was or was not a cause to begin with, it's all speculative. To instead come to a conclusion here is premature. And none of this can be (confirmed or denied) without the use of 'science' anyways, sorry.

Depending on the actual demonstrable conclusion, 'infinite regress' may very well be another topic altogether.

You tried bringing up quantum fluctuations, which didn't get you anywhere, as you had nothing to say against my response.

I have nothing much to say against the ones I bring forth, just like I have little to say against the ones you bring forth. Why? Because I told you, many times now, even before I created this thread, I'm 50/50 to a) beginning b) no beginning. And like I also continue to say... The best-case scenario for the KCA gets us to blind deism. And I already told you I would be perfectly fine with this, if actually demonstrated.

Well, let me put it to you this way...let's say that Guth changed his mind and is now a believer of a past eternal universe, because of his perceived scientific reasons. In a universe full of change, motion, and unquestionably time..there is no possible way that this universe could have endured an infinite amount of moments into its past. This is a philosophical problem; and there is no natural law, scientist, or mathematician that can get you squared circles, married bachelors, one-sided sticks, or infinite regression. You'll just have to concede that no such things exist...as that is why you dropped the whole quantum fluctuations thing, because there is nothing can say against my response.

I can say plenty, but I do not assert that one is correct over the next. Quantum fluctuations are considered valid because they are a direct consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics, which states that you cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle with perfect accuracy; this inherently leads to a "fuzziness" in the quantum field, resulting in temporary random fluctuations in energy even in seemingly empty space, which is what we call quantum fluctuations. But, like I state, I'm still 50/50 between a) no beginning vs b) beginning.

But getting back to Guth (and even Carroll)..there is a difference between..

1. Proposing a cosmological model.

2. Having actual evidence for the theory which reflects reality.

Anyone can propose anything. But if it isn't back by evidence, then all you have is conjecture. Most models (practically all), have no empirical evidence supporting them. Now, I'm no physicists, and don't claim to understand how those models work. But, I don't need to know how they work...because all I need to know is how they DON'T work. And no model is capable of solving the problem of infinite regression. None. So they don't work. If you think otherwise, pick your favorite one, and we'll put it in the infinite regression BLENDER and watch it get destroyed with my argument against infinity. This, is in fact, a challenge.

Riiight... It's all conjecture.... 'Science cannot accept the G word.'

Even if I were to pick one model, you need to specify which version of infinity you going to put forth.

I'm no longer entertaining irrelevant tirades.

'Opinions'

Stick to the argument.

Here is MY argument on the matter. It is reckless to plant your flag upon a firm position, in which is not demonstrated one way or another. This is why I also neither argue for or against abiogenesis. This is why I also remain agnostic to the topic of a 'prime mover.' But IF there IS a 'prime mover', logic and reason points to a disinterested and/or uninvolved "causal agency", as it relates directly to earthly humans.

[SiNcE_1985]

We are discussing the KCA. All the KCA attempts to 'demonstrate' is that the universe had a cause.

Yeah, and in the process, it demonstrates what is a sufficient cause of it, and what isn't an insufficient cause of it.

And my position here is that IF the universe did indeed (begin to exist), that cause could have also been from nature and not supernature. Why? Debate postulates that our universe sprung from a prior universe. However, since we do not know if there was or was not a cause to begin with, it's all speculative. To instead come to a conclusion here is premature. And none of this can be (confirmed or denied) without the use of 'science' anyways, sorry.

Depending on the actual demonstrable conclusion, 'infinite regress' may very well be another topic altogether.

Nah. I already explained my case as to why a natural cause isn't a sufficient explanation.

Deal with the argument.

I have nothing much to say against the ones I bring forth, just like I have little to say against the ones you bring forth. Why? Because I told you, many times now, even before I created this thread, I'm 50/50 to a) beginning b) no beginning. And like I also continue to say... The best-case scenario for the KCA gets us to blind deism. And I already told you I would be perfectly fine with this, if actually demonstrated.

The argument doesn't care about deism vs theism.

The argument is a case against naturalism.

I can say plenty, but I do not assert that one is correct over the next. Quantum fluctuations are considered valid because they are a direct consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics, which states that you cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle with perfect accuracy; this inherently leads to a "fuzziness" in the quantum field, resulting in temporary random fluctuations in energy even in seemingly empty space, which is what we call quantum fluctuations. But, like I state, I'm still 50/50 between a) no beginning vs b) beginning.

Irrelevant to the argument against infinite regression.

Riiight... It's all conjecture.... 'Science cannot accept the G word.'

Even if I were to pick one model, you need to specify which version of infinity you going to put forth.

An actual infinity.

Here is MY argument on the matter. It is reckless to plant your flag upon a firm position, in which is not demonstrated one way or another. This is why I also neither argue for or against abiogenesis. This is why I also remain agnostic to the topic of a 'prime mover.' But IF there IS a 'prime mover', logic and reason points to a disinterested and/or uninvolved "causal agency", as it relates directly to earthly humans.

Irrelevant tirade.

[SiNcE_1985]

.

This one...is over.

[POI]

Yeah, and in the process, it demonstrates what is a sufficient cause of it, and what isn't an insufficient cause of it.

As you would say... "Not so fast"... See below....

The argument doesn't care about deism vs theism.

According to you, it does. In (post 11), you stated "The KCA gets us to theism (which I include deism in there as well). The argument for Jesus" resurrection gets us to Christian theism. ". I instead state the argument gets you nowhere near 'theism', only 'deism'. I've already explained why in this exchange. The KCA attempts to demonstrate some 'cause', outside the confines of materialism/naturalism, and that's it. And IF this turns out to be true in reality, this supports 'deism' alone. You then need to address other arguments beyond the Kalam alone to get you anywhere near "theism".

An actual infinity.

According to most scientific and philosophical understanding, there is no "actual infinity" in the physical world, meaning we cannot physically observe or measure something that is truly infinite; infinity is a mathematical concept used to describe limitless quantities, but it does not represent a real-world phenomenon that can be directly experienced.

And according to a real philosopher, Aristotle believed that actual infinity was impossible because it would mean something was "bigger than the heavens".

Again, even if I were to pick one model, you need to specify which version of infinity you are going to put forth.

Irrelevant tirade.

You are placing too much value in the KCA my friend. Maybe because this is one of the last bastions of hope.

[SiNcE_1985]

.

It's over, brethren.

Please stop posting.

According to you, it does. In (post 11), you stated "The KCA gets us to theism (which I include deism in there as well). The argument for Jesus" resurrection gets us to Christian theism. ". I instead state the argument gets you nowhere near 'theism', only 'deism'. I've already explained why in this exchange. The KCA attempts to demonstrate some 'cause', outside the confines of materialism/naturalism, and that's it. And IF this turns out to be true in reality, this supports 'deism' alone. You then need to address other arguments beyond the Kalam alone to get you anywhere near "theism".

I just simply disagree for previously given reasons.

According to most scientific and philosophical understanding, there is no "actual infinity" in the physical world, meaning we cannot physically observe or measure something that is truly infinite; infinity is a mathematical concept used to describe limitless quantities, but it does not represent a real-world phenomenon that can be directly experienced.

That is my point; an actual infinity only exists as a conceptual idea, but you can't apply it the real world (reality) without getting absurd results.

And according to a real philosopher, Aristotle believed that actual infinity was impossible because it would mean something was "bigger than the heavens".

Again, even if I were to pick one model, you need to specify which version of infinity you are going to put forth.

You are preaching to the choir.

My argument is against an actual infinity.

[POI]

Most physicists dont make good philosophers.

Most Christians don't make good scientists.

I just simply disagree for previously given reasons.

Then I can completely disagree, for my previously given reasons.

That is my point; an actual infinity only exists as a conceptual idea, but you can't apply it the real world (reality) without getting absurd results.

'absurd results' = god?

And not only some inferred but undemonstrated impersonal god, but instead a (personal to humans) kind of undemonstrated god?

[POI]

This one...is over.

Because....

No purely naturalistic explanation for the origins of life and/or species is viable.

That my position that I will live & die by.