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]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

This is an interesting video that I ran across that somewhat relates to premise 1. i.e. the idea that everything (origin of something, motion of something, etc) must have had a cause.

The Dome Paradox: A Loophole in Newton's Law


In a nutshell, it shows that in our current understanding of the math, some things are indeterministic regarding what will happen given certain initial conditions. While not exactly what we are discussing here, it shows that what looks like 'common sense' actually breaks down under certain conditions.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled debate. Just thought this might bring another perspective to the whole 'needs a cause' type of arguments.

Of course I didn't watch the video..but I'm certain that this video wasn't listed in your "recommneded videos" algorithm.

I didn't search for it, so there goes that argument. I watch some physics videos (i.e. I'm subscribed to Physics Girl and others) and I'm guessing that's how it landed in my recommended list.

Which means, you searched for it.

Which means, the argument that I presented is so strong, you had to research for solutions.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night. It seems you still haven't clued in what happens in this kind of debate. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm merely presenting a case which I hope is stronger that yours and thus more convincing for readers.

Which means, the argument is giving you problems.

I have no problems pointing out it is a flawed argument that lives and dies by the validity of its premises.

So often in debates with you it seems more important to you to 'claim victory' and generally huff and puff about your debate opponents and how they are getting 'owned/have problems/etc'. I guarantee this style of debate, while perhaps self gratifying, is not a convincing form of debate. By all means keep using it though. I'm makes our jobs easier to be convincing when we know a lot of readers will just shut off and skip everything you say after this kind of stuff.

Anyways, from what you say about the video, it sounds like quantum mechanics is being appealed to, particularly the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Tsk tsk.

Tsk tsk indeed. Anyone who actually watches the video knows whether your ability to guess what's going on is any good. Spoiler alert, you have guessed wrong.

[SiNcE_1985]

I didn't search for it, so there goes that argument. I watch some physics videos (i.e. I'm subscribed to Physics Girl and others) and I'm guessing that's how it landed in my recommended list.

Sure, whatever you say.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night. It seems you still haven't clued in what happens in this kind of debate. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm merely presenting a case which I hope is stronger that yours and thus more convincing for readers.

Don't go against the grain, BW.

I have no problems pointing out it is a flawed argument that lives and dies by the validity of its premises.

You seem to have a problem offering viable (logical) objections to the argument.

So often in debates with you it seems more important to you to 'claim victory' and generally huff and puff about your debate opponents and how they are getting 'owned/have problems/etc'. I guarantee this style of debate, while perhaps self gratifying, is not a convincing form of debate.

And also so often in debates, I am confronted with arrogance, smug and mean-spiritedness by my debate opponents (not saying any names).

If my debate opponents won't get called out for their arrogance/smugness, then don't call me out for my pride/boisterousness.

By all means keep using it though. I'm makes our jobs easier to be convincing when we know a lot of readers will just shut off and skip everything you say after this kind of stuff.

My style ain't for everyone.

Tsk tsk indeed. Anyone who actually watches the video knows whether your ability to guess what's going on is any good. Spoiler alert, you have guessed wrong.

Charles Barkley..

"I might be wrong, but I doubt it".

[SiNcE_1985]

Feel'n deja vu here.... Oh yea, this is what was happening in that other thread in which you also strawmanned.... If you do not know what the video presents, do not try to 'rebut' it. Okay, now I'm off to start my day.,,,,

This has to be the first time in history that an actual strawman accusation, is an actual strawman itself.

We're making history around this camp.

I did not try to "rebut" the video...I only attempted to predict what the video was about. That's it.

I can care less what the video is about...it won't help you...because..

The KCA is rebuttal proof.

Because you cant rebuttal truth.

[SiNcE_1985]

Of course I didn't watch the video..but I'm certain that this video wasn't listed in your "recommneded videos" algorithm.

It was in mine last night, too.

Bro, those videos aren't gonna just start appearing on your list of recommendations unless you've had a history of search/watching similar content.

If my main video watching/search material is..

NASCAR
Hunting
Sports
Martial Arts

No "The Dome Paradox: A Loophole in Newton's Law" video is gonna be in my recommendations.

So stop it.

[SiNcE_1985]

The intellectual dishonesty continues. Before I created this thread, I informed you of my position. And you even gave be kudos for admitting I do not stand behind abiogenesis. 'tsk tsk'

Bringing up abiogenesis, on a KCA topic, is in the strawman neighborhood.

Kool, and then there is this....

Our universe is considered an open system because, based on current cosmological observations, it is continuously expanding and not expected to collapse back in on itself, meaning there is no boundary or limit to its expansion, allowing for the continuous exchange of energy and matter within its vast expanse; essentially, it has no "outside" to interact with, but its internal components are constantly moving and changing.

Density less than critical density: An open universe is characterized by having a density of matter lower than the "critical density" needed to cause the universe to eventually collapse.

Everlasting expansion:This means the universe will continue to expand indefinitely, with galaxies moving further apart over time.

No boundary:Unlike a closed universe, an open universe does not curve back on itself, implying no defined edge or limit.

Irrelevant tirade.

He's got nothing, folks.

NOTHING.

[Difflugia]

No "The Dome Paradox: A Loophole in Newton's Law" video is gonna be in my recommendations.

I'm not at all surprised by that.

So stop it.

Stop watching science videos? Is that your new strategy for making me a creationist?

[SiNcE_1985]

Stop watching science videos? Is that your new strategy for making me a creationist?

Never mind.

The point <----------- you------------>

[benchwarmer]

I didn't search for it, so there goes that argument. I watch some physics videos (i.e. I'm subscribed to Physics Girl and others) and I'm guessing that's how it landed in my recommended list.

Sure, whatever you say.

You can believe me or not, doesn't really matter. Readers who are interested have already watched the video and maybe learned something new.

Whatever makes you sleep better at night. It seems you still haven't clued in what happens in this kind of debate. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm merely presenting a case which I hope is stronger that yours and thus more convincing for readers.

Don't go against the grain, BW.

What grain? Trying to convince you rather than readers? I know that's a fools errand and not remotely why I'm here.

I have no problems pointing out it is a flawed argument that lives and dies by the validity of its premises.

You seem to have a problem offering viable (logical) objections to the argument.

My objections have already been noted. I've even been getting some good push back from historia. Good push back is welcome. Empty claims and pointless posturing are ignored and/or pointed out.

So often in debates with you it seems more important to you to 'claim victory' and generally huff and puff about your debate opponents and how they are getting 'owned/have problems/etc'. I guarantee this style of debate, while perhaps self gratifying, is not a convincing form of debate.

And also so often in debates, I am confronted with arrogance, smug and mean-spiritedness by my debate opponents (not saying any names).

So report them an move on. However, I have a feeling that when someone is presenting facts that you find inconvenient (such as what the science is actually saying and what it's not saying), you may be finding that 'smug' and/or 'arrogant'. I can only guess based on how you have been approaching these debates.

If my debate opponents won't get called out for their arrogance/smugness, then don't call me out for my pride/boisterousness.

I'm happy to call out anyone I think is being like that. However, you seem to be missing the point. Convince your audience with a sound argument. Leave the rest at the door. Hey, we all get a little heated sometimes and no one is perfect, but don't lead with "You're gonna feel the pain" and other pointless bravado if you want to be taken seriously.

By all means keep using it though. I'm makes our jobs easier to be convincing when we know a lot of readers will just shut off and skip everything you say after this kind of stuff.

My style ain't for everyone.

Maybe ponder who your style is for. Are you just preaching to the choir? To yourself? Or are you hoping to convince people on the fence?

Tsk tsk indeed. Anyone who actually watches the video knows whether your ability to guess what's going on is any good. Spoiler alert, you have guessed wrong.

Charles Barkley..

"I might be wrong, but I doubt it".

Everyone who has watched the video knows who is wrong in this case. You doubting it's you is a perfect example why no one who is on the fence should take anything you say seriously. It's like telling someone their pants are on fire. Everyone watching can see your pants on fire. You refuse to look down and claim it's just a warm breeze.

[SiNcE_1985]

You can believe me or not, doesn't really matter. Readers who are interested have already watched the video and maybe learned something new.

Are you advocating this video as a defeater of my argument?

If the answer is no, then the video is irrelevant.

If the answer is yes, then state your case.

What grain? Trying to convince you rather than readers? I know that's a fools errand and not remotely why I'm here.

No, the grain against the truth value & implications of the argument.

My objections have already been noted. I've even been getting some good push back from historia. Good push back is welcome. Empty claims and pointless posturing are ignored and/or pointed out.

Lol. Ok then.

So report them an move on. However, I have a feeling that when someone is presenting facts that you find inconvenient (such as what the science is actually saying and what it's not saying), you may be finding that 'smug' and/or 'arrogant'. I can only guess based on how you have been approaching these debates.

I try my best not to tattle tale.

I'm happy to call out anyone I think is being like that.

Sure. I believe you.

However, you seem to be missing the point. Convince your audience with a sound argument.

I do that all the time.

Leave the rest at the door. Hey, we all get a little heated sometimes and no one is perfect, but don't lead with "You're gonna feel the pain" and other pointless bravado if you want to be taken seriously.

That is just friendly, competitive banter.

It is never said nor implied in any mean-spirited way.

Don't be a fuddy duddy.

When you act all proper and conservative, you forget to actually live and enjoy life.

Maybe ponder who your style is for. Are you just preaching to the choir? To yourself? Or are you hoping to convince people on the fence?

I offer stylistic apologetics, meant to convince people on the fence while also pleasing and honoring my Lord at the same time.

Everyone who has watched the video knows who is wrong in this case. You doubting it's you is a perfect example why no one who is on the fence should take anything you say seriously. It's like telling someone their pants are on fire. Everyone watching can see your pants on fire. You refuse to look down and claim it's just a warm breeze.

Ok, I was wrong.

And I like how you are spending more time arguing the content of the video, than you are dealing with the actual argument.

Prioritizing..lack thereof.

[historia]

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?

I fear we're talking past each other here.

The point that I'm making above is that the KCA is an argument to the best explanation. And like any argument to the best explanation, the goal of the argument is to demonstrate what is most likely the case, rather than what "may" be the case, or what is "known" with complete certainty.

Now, if you don't think the KCA is successful in achieving its goal -- maybe because you don't find the scientific evidence and philosophical argumentation presented in support of the two premises compelling -- then you need merely tell us why. Trying to reword the premises just adds confusion.

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.

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.

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.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the KCA is making some kind of claim to absolute knowledge. It's not. We can never know with 100% certainty anything in science, history, or philosophy. And, lots of alternative hypotheses may be true. This is simply a given in any serious philosophical, scientific, or historical discourse, which is why it is not usually made explicit.

However, a careful examination of the available evidence along with rigorous philosophical inquiry can -- in theory, at least -- tell us which hypothesis is most likely true on any given question. And that is what the KCA is attempting to do. So we should deal with the argument on those terms.

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.

You could raise the same objection to any scientific or historical claim, since we don't "know" with 100% certainty anything in science or history. That's why this objection is simply not compelling to anyone but a solipsist.

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

Who is the "we" in this question? And why are you so determined to impugn the motives of proponents of the kalam argument? What does this ad hominem attack achieve?

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".

What I mean is that the law itself only concerns the total energy in a closed system. And so it does not by itself tell us what constraints -- if any -- might apply when the closed system was brought into being in the first place. Citing this law as a defeater to the KCA, then, is misguided.

Is there any peer reviewed science that supports the premises in the KCA?

Sure, the scholarly literature on the KCA cites peer-reviewed scientific works, which is why I asked you if you've read that literature. To put it (overly) simply: any evidence that supports the standard Big Bang model is evidence in support of Premise 2.