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?

[marke]

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?

Nobody can seriously doubt that for the universe to have begun it had to have a designer and a creator.

How do we know materialism didn't always exist in one form or another?

We know the universe had a beginning. I don't know how someone could go about trying to prove matter existed before the creation of the universe.

[POI]

We know the universe had a beginning. I don't know how someone could go about trying to prove matter existed before the creation of the universe.

Even if what you state is true, this is not what I'm talking about. How do we know materialism had a beginning?

[marke]

We know the universe had a beginning. I don't know how someone could go about trying to prove matter existed before the creation of the universe.

Even if what you state is true, this is not what I'm talking about. How do we know materialism had a beginning?

If you are not talking about knowing whether materials existed before God created the universe then I have no idea.

[POI]

If you are not talking about knowing whether materials existed before God created the universe then I have no idea.

? Do we know if absolutely no material at all ever existed? If it did, in one form or another, then it logically stands that there would be no necessity for a 'creator'. Is there a way we can know?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I see that this discussion has been going on for a while and covered a lot of ground. The KCA came up in another thread and POI invited me here to engage. I got to it faster than I thought I would.

I would love to focus in, if anyone is interested, because when too much is flying around, I think its easy to miss some things. At least it is for me, if no one else. Having said that, this is Craigs fullest formulation of the KCA:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
P4. If the universe has a cause, it must be uncaused, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, unimaginably powerful, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the universe is caused, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

I see three lines of reasoning to support premise 1 as the inference to the best explanation:

1. The idea that premise 1 is false is itself incredulous. Metaphorically, its worse than postulating a magic trick. Its saying a magic trick exists, but without a magician performing it. No one believes things (universes or otherwise) just pop into existence for no reason whatsoever.

Off the top of my head, I think there are usually two reasons people disbelieve this premise. One, through a misunderstanding of some quantum interpretations (for this point Im even assuming their coming to be is random and not simply unknown). Particles randomly pop out of the energy in a quantum vacuum is viewed as satisfying an uncaused thing beginning to exist, for example. However, this seems to me to misunderstand things. Virtual particles come to exist (even if indeterminately) because of the nature of the energy in the quantum vacuum. They dont pop into existence for no reason whatsoever.

Two, is more ad hoc, as a way to avoid the conclusion of the KCA, usually by retreating to the need for 100%, which Historia has already done a wonderful job of arguing against, so I wont rehash that. This is a very irrational reason to disbelieve premise 1.

2. Even assuming something could pop into existence and we just dont know it yet, this would lead to an absurdity. It would then become inexplicable why anything else or everything else doesnt also come into being out of nothing. What could it be about "nothing" that a universe pops out of it, rather than anything else? Nothing has no nature, so it cant be discriminatory in that way. Neither would something else be able to constrain this "nothing" towards such an end because there isnt anything there to constrain.

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1. Much of modern science is built upon this idea of causal conditions. To reject this premise would be to reject much of modern science, it seems.

Any thoughts on these supports (or counter supports for an alternative premise such as "some things that begin to exist do not have a cause" or any other one)?

[marke]

If you are not talking about knowing whether materials existed before God created the universe then I have no idea.

? Do we know if absolutely no material at all ever existed? If it did, in one form or another, then it logically stands that there would be no necessity for a 'creator'. Is there a way we can know?

Are you saying that since we don't know whether matter existed before God created it then we can logically assume there is no God?

[POI]

The KCA came up in another thread and POI invited me here to engage.

Thank you. So others are up to speed, the exchange in the other thread is currently about the deist/theist 'proving or demonstrating' immaterial beings. Since you brought up the KCA to try and 'demonstrate' this, I wanted to keep such arguments organized. Hence, since you brought up the KCA, it seems logical to place it here.

P2. The universe began to exist.

Has this actually been "demonstrated?" The KCA pins its hopes upon concluded premises. Sean Carroll instead quickly explains how 'science' has a lot left to do (2 1/2 minutes long):



I'll stop here to read your thoughts.... Further, I'm agnostic here. If any/all "material", in any/all forms, had a true beginning, I'm okay with that. But can we ever actually know this, one way or the other?.?.?.?.?

[POI]

Are you saying that since we don't know whether matter existed before God created it then we can logically assume there is no God?

What I'm saying is that if matter, in one form or another, has always existed, then 'creation' of matter becomes a nonsensical assertion.

[The Tanager]

Thank you. So others are up to speed, the exchange in the other thread is currently about the deist/theist 'proving or demonstrating' immaterial beings. Since you brought up the KCA to try and 'demonstrate' this, I wanted to keep such arguments organized. Hence, since you brought up the KCA, it seems logical to place it here.

Thank you, POI. I love keeping arguments organized as well and this was a good idea from you.

P2. The universe began to exist.

Has this actually been "demonstrated?" The KCA pins its hopes upon concluded premises. Sean Carroll instead quickly explains how 'science' has a lot left to do (2 1/2 minutes long):

Because we like to keep arguments organized, by moving onto P2, are you saying that you agree with P1? If you dont agree, then where do you think my support fails or what counter support do you offer and for which alternative premise?

If you do agree, then lets move onto P2 and the Carroll video. Before doing that, though, please define how you are using "demonstrated".

[POI]

Because we like to keep arguments organized, by moving onto P2, are you saying that you agree with P1?

This is where language can muck things up. But sure.... Let's keep it moving to P2, at least for now...

If you do agree, then lets move onto P2 and the Carroll video. Before doing that, though, please define how you are using "demonstrated".

Please watch the 2-minute video and tell me if professed deists/theists really should hang their hat upon P2 at all, regardless of what one means by 'demonstrated'?