Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 20, 2024, 2:23 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
In Defense of the Kalam
#23
RE: In Defense of the Kalam
(March 5, 2014 at 5:21 pm)Avodaiah Wrote: Anyway, on to the counterarguments:
I) The universe began to exist.
1) How do you know?
Because the things in the universe are constantly moving and changing. And if the universe is changing, it has to have a beginning state to change from. That means if the universe is changing, it must have had a beginning.
2) Time doesn't progress in such a simple way.
It doesn't matter if time progresses at different speeds or even backwards; everything in the universe still moves through time, and it can't have been moving through time infinitely: Again, if things are changing, they must have had a beginning state to change from.
3) This may be true for things in the universe, but not for the universe itself.
True, things in the universe can cause other things in it, but this is a form of change, and if this sequence of causes has gone on infinitely (i.e. the universe is infinite), then we are left with the same problem of infinite changes without a beginning state. That means the universe must not have gone on infinitely.
Correct. Cosmology currently points to the Big Bang as the beginning of space-time.
Quote:II) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
1) According to particle physics, this does not seem to be the case.
This is not just a law of physics; it is a law of pure mathematics and logic. Nothing cannot become something, just like 0 cannot equal 1; there needs to be a cause.
2) Ex nihilo or ex materia? You need to pick one.
Ex materia in both premises. The entire point of the argument is that there can be no creation ex nihilo. When we say God created the universe from nothing, we mean from nothing but Himself and His own power. We're not idiots... you know, usually... :S
3) NBE is just a synonym for God.
No, NBE is a hypothetical category, just like BE is. This argument is not trying to prove that there is only one NBE (i.e. God); there could be 2, 10, 100, or more NBEs in it. This argument only proves that the category is not empty and that every BE was caused by an NBE.
Nothing significant stated here. You've just interchanged the word "unknown" with the word "God" without explaining anything and subsequently beg many more questions about the nature of this deity that you've created and conveniently left unanswered.
Quote:III) The universe has a cause.
1) Then who created God?
Remember that only things that begin to exist have to have a cause, and only things that change begin to exist. Also only things which move through time can change. Whatever the universe's cause is, it need not do any of these things.
2) This doesn't prove which god exists.
I never said it does. It is just an argument against atheism, not for any specific religion.

P.S. I'm a guy, Esquilax. Tongue
Pretty weak argument that offers no new information regarding the nature of reality or the origin of the Universe. It should be called the Kalam semantics game.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply



Messages In This Thread
In Defense of the Kalam - by Avodaiah - March 4, 2014 at 8:15 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by BrianSoddingBoru4 - March 4, 2014 at 8:30 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by ShaMan - March 4, 2014 at 8:33 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Jackalope - March 4, 2014 at 8:42 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Angrboda - March 4, 2014 at 8:42 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Simon Moon - March 4, 2014 at 9:17 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Alex K - March 5, 2014 at 2:50 am
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by The Valkyrie - March 4, 2014 at 9:25 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Cinjin - March 4, 2014 at 10:16 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Esquilax - March 4, 2014 at 10:52 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Marsellus Wallace - March 4, 2014 at 11:45 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by max-greece - March 5, 2014 at 3:01 am
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Esquilax - March 5, 2014 at 3:41 am
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by FreeTony - March 5, 2014 at 5:50 am
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Cyberman - March 5, 2014 at 10:01 am
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Kayenneh - March 5, 2014 at 12:59 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by truthBtold - March 5, 2014 at 1:03 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Mudhammam - March 5, 2014 at 1:59 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Tonus - March 5, 2014 at 2:06 pm
In Defense of the Kalam - by Rampant.A.I. - March 5, 2014 at 2:31 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Avodaiah - March 5, 2014 at 5:21 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Mudhammam - March 5, 2014 at 6:23 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Esquilax - March 6, 2014 at 11:43 am
In Defense of the Kalam - by Rampant.A.I. - March 5, 2014 at 5:26 pm
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by shep - March 6, 2014 at 9:15 am
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Tonus - March 6, 2014 at 10:14 am
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Avodaiah - March 12, 2014 at 12:09 am
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Alex K - March 12, 2014 at 4:30 am
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Tonus - March 12, 2014 at 5:25 am
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Esquilax - March 12, 2014 at 5:47 am
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Alex K - March 12, 2014 at 6:27 am
RE: In Defense of the Kalam - by Minimalist - March 12, 2014 at 12:28 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  In Defense of God. The Grand Nudger 55 13335 June 27, 2017 at 2:28 am
Last Post: GUBU
  The Free Will Defense - Isn't it Unusable? MindForgedManacle 23 10114 November 13, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Last Post: Aldarion
  Kalam Cosmological Nonsense median 18 4363 April 24, 2013 at 3:06 pm
Last Post: median
  In defense of Satan chatpilot 52 17740 April 24, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)