Kalam cosmological agument

[atheist buddy]

The argument goes like this:

Everything which begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause
The cause is the God of classical theism



Here is another argument:

Everything which breaks has a cause
My toaster broke
Therefore the breaking of my toaster has a cause
The cause is the God of classical theism



How do the notions that the universe existing has a cause, and my toaster breaking has a cause, in any way logically lead to the concusion that this cause is an allpowerful sentient intelligent being who reads our minds and doesn't want us to masturbate?


Assume that the argument properly defines what "begins" means (which the argument doesn't), assume that everything which "begins" to exist indeed has a cause (although it hasn't been demonstrated), assume that the argument properly defined what the universe is (although the argument doesn't), assume that it began to exist (although it hasn't been demonstrated), and then, sure, you come to the conclusion that something caused the universe.

Much like something caused my toaster to break.

Why not assume something like a quantum fluctuation in the singularity, or a power surge from a circuit breaker burning out?

[wiploc]

Quantum fluctuations don't have to explain the origin of the universe. All they have to do is falsify the claim that every effect must have a cause, which they do very nicely.

Every effect has a cause because that's what an effect is, by definition. Perhaps you mean that not every thing has a cause.

[wiploc]

So basically, what it boils down to is the fact that naturalists would rather believe that the universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing than believe in the "G" word.

So what it comes down to is that you'd rather believe that your god popped into being uncaused out of nothing than believe in nature.

1. Even if something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing, it would have to do so in time...

So you're saying that god popped into existence after the beginning of time? I'm with you, proceed.

but time cannot be eternal in its past, and likewise, there cannot be an infinite amount of events in time.

I've never seen anybody defend those claims effectively. They seem just made up.

And the event of our universe originating would be just one event on an infinitely long chain of events....in time...and this cannot happen in reality.

So you prefer the god popping into existence from nothing, after the beginning of time. You think that makes more sense.

2. If something can pop in to being out of nothing, then why doesn't any and everything pop in to being uncaused out of nothing? Why only particles, or universes? Why not money, cars, or horses??

If gods pop into being out of nothing, then why don't they do so all the time? According to your logic, if your god hypothesis was correct, we'd be waist deep in new gods.

The state of nothingness doesn't have any pre-deterministic features or qualities that will allow just particles...or JUST universe to pop out of nothing..how can the state of nothingness be so arbitrary and picky...but then again, how can the state of nothingness do anything?

So now you're arguing that gods can't really happen? A god can't come from nothing because nothingness doesn't have deogenetic properties? Therefore no gods? Is that your position?

Either way, there is no viable answers to either of those points, certainly not the first one. A first cause, with free will is necessary for physical reality to exist.

That's not defensible.

[Talishi]

Quantum fluctuations don't have to explain the origin of the universe. All they have to do is falsify the claim that every effect must have a cause, which they do very nicely.

Every effect has a cause because that's what an effect is, by definition. Perhaps you mean that not every thing has a cause.

Empty space is going along, going along, oh, look! There's an electron and a positron flying away from each other! No wait, they're oppositely charged, now they're flying back toward each other! Whoops, now there's nothing again, the uncaused event is over, except my two metal plates are a bit closer together because they form a resonant cavity that restricts the spectrum of virtual particles that can appear between them while the spectrum of virtual particles that can appear outside of the plates are not so constrained, resulting in a net tug that I can measure.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So what it comes down to is that you'd rather believe that your god popped into being uncaused out of nothing than believe in nature.

Um, no, I would rather believe the traditional Christian view, which is that God is a metaphysically necessary being with no beginning and no end to his existence.

So you're saying that god popped into existence after the beginning of time? I'm with you, proceed.

When you start with false representation of what someone believes, usually, any conclusion that is made after that misrepresentation is also....false.

I've never seen anybody defend those claims effectively. They seem just made up.

If there were an infinite amount of days which preceded today, how could we ever arrive at "today".

Can you adequately answer that question? Nope.

So you prefer the god popping into existence from nothing, after the beginning of time. You think that makes more sense.

If gods pop into being out of nothing, then why don't they do so all the time? According to your logic, if your god hypothesis was correct, we'd be waist deep in new gods.

So now you're arguing that gods can't really happen? A god can't come from nothing because nothingness doesn't have deogenetic properties? Therefore no gods? Is that your position?

That's not defensible.

Everything that you said is based on straw man tactics...attacking a position that no Christian theist holds. No one said or implied anything about gods popping into being out of nothing.

[Bust Nak]

Um, no, I would rather believe the traditional Christian view, which is that God is a metaphysically necessary being with no beginning and no end to his existence.

That's a special pleading fallacy right there, why not a metaphysically necessary meta-universe with no beginning and no end to its existence?

If there were an infinite amount of days which preceded today, how could we ever arrive at "today".

The question is incomplete, arrive at "today" counting from when exactly?

Can you adequately answer that question? Nope.

Nor should you expect any answers to a malformed question.

[wiploc]

Quantum fluctuations don't have to explain the origin of the universe. All they have to do is falsify the claim that every effect must have a cause, which they do very nicely.

Every effect has a cause because that's what an effect is, by definition. Perhaps you mean that not every thing has a cause.

Empty space is going along, going along, oh, look! There's an electron and a positron flying away from each other! No wait, they're oppositely charged, now they're flying back toward each other! Whoops, now there's nothing again, the uncaused event is over, except my two metal plates are a bit closer together because they form a resonant cavity that restricts the spectrum of virtual particles that can appear between them while the spectrum of virtual particles that can appear outside of the plates are not so constrained, resulting in a net tug that I can measure.

So, not every event has a cause.

[wiploc]

So what it comes down to is that you'd rather believe that your god popped into being uncaused out of nothing than believe in nature.

Um, no, I would rather believe the traditional Christian view, which is that God is a metaphysically necessary being with no beginning and no end to his existence.

So you're saying that god popped into existence after the beginning of time? I'm with you, proceed.

When you start with false representation of what someone believes, usually, any conclusion that is made after that misrepresentation is also....false.

I've never seen anybody defend those claims effectively. They seem just made up.

If there were an infinite amount of days which preceded today, how could we ever arrive at "today".

Can you adequately answer that question? Nope.

So you prefer the god popping into existence from nothing, after the beginning of time. You think that makes more sense.

If gods pop into being out of nothing, then why don't they do so all the time? According to your logic, if your god hypothesis was correct, we'd be waist deep in new gods.

So now you're arguing that gods can't really happen? A god can't come from nothing because nothingness doesn't have deogenetic properties? Therefore no gods? Is that your position?

That's not defensible.

Everything that you said is based on straw man tactics...attacking a position that no Christian theist holds. No one said or implied anything about gods popping into being out of nothing.

I was just reflecting your own tactics back at you. If you don't think they are fair, you shouldn't use them yourself.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That's a special pleading fallacy right there, why not a metaphysically necessary meta-universe with no beginning and no end to its existence?

Bro, the universe began to exist...something that began to exist cannot be metaphysically necessary.

The question is incomplete, arrive at "today" counting from when exactly?

That is the point, there is no point of reference to start from. You can only arrive at a discrete point (today) if and only if there is a finite amount of points which preceded the point in question (today).

If there is no boundary/beginning, then there is no way you can "arrive" at any specific point. The very fact that we've successfully arrived at today would mean that there were only a finite amount of points which lead to today.

If there is a finite amount of "days" which lead to today, then that would mean that we've arrived at today from a single, concrete initiation of events which lead to all other events...all of which preceded this day.

Now, of course, you can reach in your little bag of tricks and try to blossom out of this problem, but this is a problem for anyone who claims that the universe is eternal in its past.

There is no amount of science that can help you, no amount of math, no magic trick can be performed...this is just sound/valid logic and reasoning that cannot be proven wrong because you can't rebuttal necessary truths.

Nor should you expect any answers to a malformed question.

Not at all.

[Bust Nak]

Bro, the universe began to exist...something that began to exist cannot be metaphysically necessary.

That's why I said meta-universe instead of our universe.

That is the point, there is no point of reference to start from. You can only arrive at a discrete point (today) if and only if there is a finite amount of points which preceded the point in question (today).

So you purposely asked a malformed question? And some how the lack of a direct answer mean you were right?

That's worse than the typical "when did you stop beating your wife" loaded question, when you know the person doesn't even have a wife.

If there is no boundary/beginning, then there is no way you can "arrive" at any specific point.

Incorrect. I just need to arrive here by a "travelling" a final amount of time form any previous point.

The very fact that we've successfully arrived at today would mean that there were only a finite amount of points which lead to today.

Yes, there is a finite amount of points which lead to today between every single point in time in the past.

If there is a finite amount of "days" which lead to today, then that would mean that we've arrived at today from a single, concrete initiation of events which lead to all other events...all of which preceded this day.

Non sequitur fallacy. That doesn't imply there must have been a beginning. There is a finite amount of "days" which lead to today, from any number of single, concrete events which lead to all other events...all of which preceded this day.

Now, of course, you can reach in your little bag of tricks and try to blossom out of this problem, but this is a problem for anyone who claims that the universe is eternal in its past.

If I can "blossom out of this problem" then it's not a problem now, is it?

There is no amount of science that can help you, no amount of math, no magic trick can be performed...

Of course there is. Math is on my side here, it is the perfect tool for dealing with infinities.

this is just sound/valid logic and reasoning that cannot be proven wrong because you can't rebuttal necessary truths.

The fact that I can prove you wrong tells us that you don't have necessary truths.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That's why I said meta-universe instead of our universe.

Physical reality cannot be past eternal.

So you purposely asked a malformed question? And some how the lack of a direct answer mean you were right?

How about addressing the meat and potatos of what I said?

That's worse than the typical "when did you stop beating your wife" loaded question, when you know the person doesn't even have a wife.

Are you accusing me of asking a question that I knew couldn't be answered?

Incorrect. I just need to arrive here by a "travelling" a final amount of time form any previous point.

But there are an infinite amount of points to travel from, assuming there is no ultimate beginning.

Yes, there is a finite amount of points which lead to today between every single point in time in the past.

I am talking about the totality of all the points, which is an infinite amount. If there were an infinite amount of days that preceded "today", how would today ever get here?

Non sequitur fallacy. That doesn't imply there must have been a beginning. There is a finite amount of "days" which lead to today, from any number of single, concrete events which lead to all other events...all of which preceded this day.

Funny...because you think you made an excellent point, but you actually proved mines. You are saying that there are an infinite amount of "finite" days which lead to today...ok, fine....that is still an infinite amount, isn't it? It is. So how does that negate anything that I said?

The "set" of all days which lead to today is infinite. For us to arrive at today would mean that there were an infinite amount of prior days, all of which lead to today..and this cannot happen because you cannot traverse infinity.

If I can "blossom out of this problem" then it's not a problem now, is it?

If my name was Earl, my name would be Earl.

Of course there is. Math is on my side here, it is the perfect tool for dealing with infinities.

Math? Ok. Use math to give an answer to this analogy.

Imagine there was a road that was infinitely long in both directions...

<----------------------------------West East---------------------------------->

Now imagine you are running on this road, running East. Imagine that you've been running for eternity, never stopping.

Imagine that as you are running, you see me standing in the middle of the road. Once you reach me, I tell you to stop, and I challenge you to run the opposite direct (west), and once you reach equal distance (west) that relative to the distance that you reached when you met me (east)...I want you to stop once you've reached that equivalent distance in the opposite direction.

Once you stop, and is able to tell me the equalivent distance relative to my position on the road, you will receive a trillion dollars.

Now tell me, at what literal point would you stop? What will be equal going west (where you came from) relative to east? When can you collect your money?

Use whatever math you need to use to answer this, please.

The fact that I can prove you wrong tells us that you don't have necessary truths.

You did? You can indeed prove me wrong by answering the above question.