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?

[POI]

To me, for a quick example, time dilation seems irrational or defies logic.

Why would it defy logic to have observers in different reference frames experiencing time passing at different rates?

The faster one travels, the slower time travels, seems a nonsensical concept, if not otherwise demonstrated to me. It's a head-scratcher, even though I know it is true, via 'demonstration.' As for the 'universe', arguments are placed forth that there may not be a beginning, and to ask such a question is like asking what is north of the Norh Pole or what is colder than absolute zero? Meaning, until we gather enough empirical data, we may very well be planting our flags upon a false premise. This is why I remain agnostic to P2 of the KCA.

They would be more of the same philosophical type, which you are just assuming away, so I dont see the point.

Just because I remain completely agnostic for one, does not mean I would do the same for all of them. What other(s) point to immaterial being(s)?

[The Tanager]

The faster one travels, the slower time travels, seems a nonsensical concept, if not otherwise demonstrated to me. It's a head-scratcher, even though I know it is true, via 'demonstration.'

Perhaps you mean counterintuitive? What law of logic is this breaking?

As for the 'universe', arguments are placed forth that there may not be a beginning, and to ask such a question is like asking what is north of the Norh Pole or what is colder than absolute zero? Meaning, until we gather enough empirical data, we may very well be planting our flags upon a false premise. This is why I remain agnostic to P2 of the KCA.

Yes, you are an agnostic because you believe science is the only way one could get an answer. You have no scientific evidence for that, so you are making a philosophical move (and a very bad one at that) by simply assuming its truth. Thus, you remain an agnostic for a very bad reason.

Just because I remain completely agnostic for one, does not mean I would do the same for all of them. What other(s) point to immaterial being(s)?

The reason you remain agnostic cuts you off before even dealing with the actual argument and that reason will do the same thing to every other argument.

[POI]

Perhaps you mean counterintuitive?

No. I mean time dilation, the phenomenon where time appears to slow down the faster you travel. It boggles my mind and drives me crazy.

Yes, you are an agnostic because you believe science is the only way one could get an answer.

Negative sir. I asked you what is the best tool for the job? If you want to discuss a topic directly under cosmology, wouldn't logic steer one in investigation using a necessary tool, which in this case, would be cosmology? Are we going to discover the state of our 'universe' without using any cosmology at all? If so, then cosmology need not apply at all, and maybe we should instead only seek philosophical discussion(s), or other tools outside cosmology? And/or maybe only probe the minds of some of the best philosophers/other to figure out the state of our "universe"? Is cosmology a necessary tool to investigate topics directly under the field of cosmology, or not?

You have no scientific evidence for that, so you are making a philosophical move (and a very bad one at that) by simply assuming its truth.

I am not making any move, other than to point out that to hold a position is premature, or in haste. Do you believe P2 is settled? If so, is it settled without any use of 'science', as a tool, at all? If so, then I guess we can confer with all of cosmology and let them know they are completely barking up the wrong tree here.

The reason you remain agnostic cuts you off before even dealing with the actual argument and that reason will do the same thing to every other argument.

Again, can P2 of the KCA be determined without using cosmological tools, or not? If so, then I guess cosmology is a completely unnecessary tool for the job here?

Otherwise, what other argument(s) do you have to offer in favor of the assertion for "immaterial being(s)"?

[The Tanager]

No. I mean time dilation, the phenomenon where time appears to slow down the faster you travel. It boggles my mind and drives me crazy.

I meant that maybe you meant time dilation was counterintuitive rather than illogical. If not, then what law of logic is time dilation breaking?

Negative sir. I asked you what is the best tool for the job? If you want to discuss a topic directly under cosmology, wouldn't logic steer one in investigation using a necessary tool, which in this case, would be cosmology? Are we going to discover the state of our 'universe' without using any cosmology at all? If so, then cosmology need not apply at all, and maybe we should instead only seek philosophical discussion(s), or other tools outside cosmology? And/or maybe only probe the minds of some of the best philosophers/other to figure out the state of our "universe"? Is cosmology a necessary tool to investigate topics directly under the field of cosmology, or not?

But to address logical questions that affect those fields, logic is the necessary tool. Ive offered two arguments that address how the spatio-temporal universe (given what we scientifically know about it), logically, cannot be eternal. The way to defeat those is not through cosmology that ignores this.

[POI]

I meant that maybe you meant time dilation was counterintuitive rather than illogical. If not, then what law of logic is time dilation breaking?

I'm simply saying that there exist certain 'law(s)' which appear to defy my own logic. And yet, I must still reconcile their reality, based upon the 'evidence'.

And, until we actually know if (asking what came before our universe is indeed actually a valid question?), deists/theists are pushing forward in haste, IMHO.

But to address logical questions that affect those fields, logic is the necessary tool.

See above. I cannot logically propel forward on a topic for which I have not picked a stance or position upon. When P2 is resolved, then sure

[The Tanager]

I'm simply saying that there exist certain 'law(s)' which appear to defy my own logic. And yet, I must still reconcile their reality, based upon the 'evidence'.

Okay, so it doesnt actually defy logic, its just unexpected or goes against what you thought? I dont think that is a good reason to reject the role of philosophical reasoning in determining rational beliefs.

See above. I cannot logically propel forward on a topic for which I have not picked a stance or position upon. When P2 is resolved, then sure

You wont listen to how it is resolved because you think its a scientific question alone, when its not.

And to the further question about what other evidence there is for the existence of the immaterial, you make the same self-defeating mistake. Science, by definition, cannot tell us if the immaterial exists or doesnt, because it is the study of the material world. If you refuse to follow philosophy, then you cant propel forward on this.

[POI]

You wont listen to how it is resolved because you think its a scientific question alone, when its not.

Is 'science' at least one of the necessary tool(s) to determine whether or not the 'universe' began to exist?

And to the further question about what other evidence there is for the existence of the immaterial, you make the same self-defeating mistake. Science, by definition, cannot tell us if the immaterial exists or doesnt, because it is the study of the material world. If you refuse to follow philosophy, then you cant propel forward on this.

You have me all wrong sir... Let's try a differing approach here...

Is it now common knowledge that 'the universe began to exist'? Yes or no? If it is common knowledge, then I guess myself, along with many, lack this common knowledge. The point being... I cannot propel to any next step until the common knowledge portion is established. I doubt P2 of the KCA is common knowledge. And as the video I provided explains, we have much left to discover in determining whether such a conclusion can be established, in regard to exploring further "philosophical headway" from there.

[The Tanager]

Is 'science' at least one of the necessary tool(s) to determine whether or not the 'universe' began to exist?

Yes, mathematics (concerning infinity) and the science behind the temporal nature of our reality gives us something that logic can work off of to help us see the universe is not eternal.

Is it now common knowledge that 'the universe began to exist'? Yes or no? If it is common knowledge, then I guess myself, along with many, lack this common knowledge. The point being... I cannot propel to any next step until the common knowledge portion is established. And as the video I provided explains, we have much left to discover in determining whether such a conclusion can be established, in regard to exploring "philosophical headway".

No, its not common knowledge because people dont even try to think about it, while many that do, think poorly about it, in large part, due to scientistic (different than scientific) tendencies.

[POI]

Is 'science' at least one of the necessary tool(s) to determine whether or not the 'universe' began to exist?

Yes, mathematics (concerning infinity) and the science behind the temporal nature of our reality gives us something that logic can work off of to help us see the universe is not eternal.

Is it now common knowledge that 'the universe began to exist'? Yes or no? If it is common knowledge, then I guess myself, along with many, lack this common knowledge. The point being... I cannot propel to any next step until the common knowledge portion is established. And as the video I provided explains, we have much left to discover in determining whether such a conclusion can be established, in regard to exploring "philosophical headway".

No, its not common knowledge because people dont even try to think about it, while many that do, think poorly about it, in large part, due to scientistic (different than scientific) tendencies.

Is it instead possible that the stated P2 of the KCA is not 'common knowledge' because we do not yet have enough data? Is it instead rational to remain agnostic to this position, due to lack in actual discovery?

[The Tanager]

Is it instead possible that the stated P2 of the KCA is not 'common knowledge' because we do not yet have enough data? Is it instead rational to remain agnostic to this position, due to lack in actual discovery?

I've said here is the data and it is enough because of x, y, and z. If you don't address the x, y, and z but only assert that it doesn't seem like enough to you and others, then that isn't remaining agnostic for rational reasons.