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?

[The Tanager]

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

Okay, yes, we can always come back to it.

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'?

I dont see how anything Carroll says in that video gives deists, theists, or atheists a reason to believe some other premise in place of P2. He talks about four options:

(1) A universe of infinite time and infinite space
(2) A universe of infinite time and finite space
(3) A universe of finite time and infinite space
(4) A universe of finite time and finite space

He believes (1) has the highest probability of explaining how weird this little part of the universe we can observe is since it is so vastly weird. Sounds right to me. And irrelevant to P2 unless, perhaps, we had absolutely nothing else to go on. But we do have other info to go on. We have reason to believe the spatio-temporal matter (which we call the universe) cannot be eternal. Here are the two arguments often offered that must be defeated to reject P2 rationally.

A1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
A2. An infinite temporal regress of events (the history of the universe, including anything prior to the Big Bang) is an actual infinite.
A3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Now, even if this is false, you need to deal with the second:

B1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
B2. The temporal series of events (the history of the universe, including anything prior to the Big Bang) is a collection formed by successive addition.
B3. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.

[marke]

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.

That is like saying if such and such were true then God must be a lie.

[POI]

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

Okay, yes, we can always come back to it.

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'?

I dont see how anything Carroll says in that video gives deists, theists, or atheists a reason to believe some other premise in place of P2. He talks about four options:

(1) A universe of infinite time and infinite space
(2) A universe of infinite time and finite space
(3) A universe of finite time and infinite space
(4) A universe of finite time and finite space

He believes (1) has the highest probability of explaining how weird this little part of the universe we can observe is since it is so vastly weird. Sounds right to me. And irrelevant to P2 unless, perhaps, we had absolutely nothing else to go on. But we do have other info to go on. We have reason to believe the spatio-temporal matter (which we call the universe) cannot be eternal. Here are the two arguments often offered that must be defeated to reject P2 rationally.

A1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
A2. An infinite temporal regress of events (the history of the universe, including anything prior to the Big Bang) is an actual infinite.
A3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Now, even if this is false, you need to deal with the second:

B1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
B2. The temporal series of events (the history of the universe, including anything prior to the Big Bang) is a collection formed by successive addition.
B3. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.

The point is that we just do not know yet. And anyone who wishes to hang their proverbial hat upon P2 is doing so out of turn, or in haste, and/or prematurely.

[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.

That is like saying if such and such were true then God must be a lie.

We do not know if material has always existed in one form or another. Or is there something I've missed?

[marke]

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.

That is like saying if such and such were true then God must be a lie.

We do not know if material has always existed in one form or another. Or is there something I've missed?

I think you nailed it. I believe Isaac Newton once compared what scientists know relative to what can be known to a single pebble compared to all the pebbles on all the world's oceans.

[The Tanager]

The point is that we just do not know yet. And anyone who wishes to hang their proverbial hat upon P2 is doing so out of turn, or in haste, and/or prematurely.

The two arguments I gave, if sound, counter that point. So, to keep your point alive, you have to defeat those arguments. You can do that by countering the truth of one of those premises or by making an argument of your own that shows philosophical arguments don't give us help in what is true.

[POI]

I think you nailed it. I believe Isaac Newton once compared what scientists know relative to what can be known to a single pebble compared to all the pebbles on all the world's oceans.

Then maybe deists/theists are acting in haste, by pinning their hopes upon P2 of the KCA.

[POI]

The point is that we just do not know yet. And anyone who wishes to hang their proverbial hat upon P2 is doing so out of turn, or in haste, and/or prematurely.

The two arguments I gave, if sound, counter that point. So, to keep your point alive, you have to defeat those arguments. You can do that by countering the truth of one of those premises or by making an argument of your own that shows philosophical arguments don't give us help in what is true.

Well, in regard to the KCA, I take no positive position. I'm absolutely agnostic. You can have your hypothetical position(s) if you like, but new data/evidence(s) change our positions all the time. Case/point, 5,000 years ago, the world was a flat disc. 75 years ago, the world was a perfect sphere. 30 years ago, it's more pair shaped. I'm now 99.9% confident the earth is not a flat disc. Which means I can rule that assertion out. Alternatively, in regard to the "universe" having a true beginning or not, I think we have not effectively ruled any position out, unlike with some assertions for the shape of earth.

[The Tanager]

The two arguments I gave, if sound, counter that point. So, to keep your point alive, you have to defeat those arguments. You can do that by countering the truth of one of those premises or by making an argument of your own that shows philosophical arguments don't give us help in what is true.

Well, in regard to the KCA, I take no positive position. I'm absolutely agnostic. You can have your hypothetical position(s) if you like, but new data/evidence(s) change our positions all the time. Case/point, 5,000 years ago, the world was a flat disc. 75 years ago, the world was a perfect sphere. 30 years ago, it's more pair shaped. I'm now 99.9% confident the earth is not a flat disc. Which means I can rule that assertion out. Alternatively, in regard to the "universe" having a true beginning or not, I think we have not effectively ruled any position out, unlike with some assertions for the shape of earth.

First, even if the arguments I gave could be disproven by new evidence, you'd be advocating for a completely blind faith take to avoid the conclusion of the KCA. You (rightly) don't allow theists to back up their views through blind faith and assumption. This is no different.

Second, these arguments (if sound) cannot be disproven by new evidence anymore than the existence of a square circle could. These arguments are saying it is logically impossible for the spatio-temporal universe to be eternal.

If you disagree with the conclusion of premise 2, then show where the argument that rules the eternal universe position out gets it wrong. Otherwise one is just sticking their head in the sand and that is a poor reason to remain agnostic.

[POI]

First, even if the arguments I gave could be disproven by new evidence, you'd be advocating for a completely blind faith take to avoid the conclusion of the KCA.

Sure, but I take no position on the KCA. I feel we do not have enough discovery to make a conclusion. I see deists/theists as eager beavers to make a conclusion for P2 when 'science' is still duking it out. This is why I was reluctant to answer some of your prior questions about what it means to 'demonstrate' a position. I know the waters can get murking real fast.

You (rightly) don't allow theists to back up their views through blind faith and assumption. This is no different.

Yes, this is because they plant their flag or assert a position. In regard to whether or not the 'universe' had a true beginning, I do not. Alternatively, do you find my position unreasonable, in remaining agnostic? Is the KCA the be-all-end-all argument to assert the position for an 'immaterial being'? If this is all you have, then we will likely get nowhere....

Second, these arguments (if sound) cannot be disproven by new evidence anymore than the existence of a square circle could. These arguments are saying it is logically impossible for the spatio-temporal universe to be eternal.

Then I guess Sean Carroll is just a "God denier." I instead think he legitimately states we have much more to discover regarding such a topic.

If you disagree with the conclusion of premise 2, then show where the argument that rules the eternal universe position out gets it wrong. Otherwise one is just sticking their head in the sand and that is a poor reason to remain agnostic.

I'm agnostic. I have no position,.. You may be right and you may be wrong...