Kalam Cosmological Nonsense

[median]

So the Kalam Argument (KCA for short) states the following:

P1 - Whatever begins to exist must have a cause
P2 - The universe began to exist
C - Therefore, the universe has a cause

I have at least two points on this before getting to the big point of this OP.

1. Even if granted, this argument does not, in any way, get theists to a divine disembodied, all powerful, mind. "The cause" can be, and I say is, something for which we know NOT what. So we should admit ignorance, and withhold judgment, until further data comes in.

2. Even if granted, the argument does not say "must have a cause ex-nihilo". And current cosmology does not say, and could not say, our current local universe derived from ex-nihilo (non-existence). There is no way to even comprehend what "non-existence" even is. Again, at best we could say that our current local universe (which we are now partly experiencing) started a certain number of years ago and we know not exactly from what or how. Again, we should admit ignorance and withhold judgment - NOT jump to the bald assertion "God did it", which has been so common amongst religious folks throughout history when they have had gaps in their knowledge (Zeus!).

TURNING THE TABLES:

I have put together this argument as a response to the KCA. Comment if you like.

P1 - Whatever did not begin to exist (ex nihilo), does not need a cause
P2 - The global universe did not begin to exist (ex nihilo)
C - Therefore, the global universe does not need a cause

Now, I could anticipate a possible response to P2. Someone might ask how I know the global universe did not begin to exist (ex nihilo). My response is that none of our experience demonstrates anything pointing to anything coming into being ex nihilo. Thus there is no reason to think our current local universe came into being "from nothing", just like there is no reason to think our local universe came into being from a disembodied mind. It just might be the case that we cannot get the answer we want - perhaps due to the limits of our faculties etc. - or that we simply have not found the correct way of thinking about it yet. Again, at best we should be left with skepticism (not rigid belief or conclusion). Another objection might be that "actual infinities" are not possible. Therefore, my conclusion doesn't work. My response here is that this is an absurd response. How does one know that their view of "actual infinities" is the correct one - especially when much of science has demonstrated that our first intuitions are often wrong about subjects of this kind? Is God infinite? If so, then by this line of reasoning, it cannot exist. I maintain that the jury is still out as to "actual infinities", and again we should admit ignorance and withhold judgment.


FOR FUN:

Here is another argument I found online which displays how absurd KCA is. Comment if you like.

P1 - Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist, to begin existing
P2 - Anything which begins existing was not caused to do so by something which exists
P3 - The universe began to exist
P4 - Given 2&3, The universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists
P5 - God caused the universe to exist
C - Given 4&5, God does not exist

[Neo-Scholastic]

Premise 1 is flawed: A carpenter can build a house where none previously existed. Prior to Newton and Leibniz calculus did not exist, now it does.

Just for Fun:
Define 'global universe'. What does it include and more specifically what, besides God and silly examples like pink unicorns, does it exclude?
Define the essential properties a real thing must have in order to exist.

[median]

Premise 1 is flawed: A carpenter can build a house where none previously existed. Prior to Newton and Leibniz calculus did not exist, now it does.

No, it's not flawed. A carpenter doesn't create anything ex nihilo. He merely reassembles material that was already in existence (1st law of thermodynamics). Regarding Calculus etc, those are not 'things'. They are abstracts. A mere discovery is not a creation ex nihilo. If you want to defend that claim, please do.

Just for Fun:
Define 'global universe'. What does it include and more specifically what, besides God and silly examples like pink unicorns, does it exclude?
Define the essential properties a real thing must have in order to exist.

For short, the global universe includes the totality of all physical/energetic existence (i.e. - the totality of all things that exist). We do not know that our local universe is the totality of all that exists and there certainly has been no demonstration of any "creation ex nihilo". There are a vast number of possibilities that have been postulated by science (multi verses, etc). This is why I said the correct response is to admit ignorance and withhold judgment, instead of leaping to "Yahweh did it." Attempting to solve a mystery by another mystery doesn't solve anything.

[downbeatplumb]

I see once again god is equated with an abstract concept by Chad.
As I see god as the anthropomorphism of abstract concepts this fits with my view.

[median]

I see once again god is equated with an abstract concept by Chad.
As I see god as the anthropomorphism of abstract concepts this fits with my view.

Except, of course, his debate tactics are intellectually dishonest b/c (elsewhere, in other threads) he has revealed what he REALLY believes (biblical Christianity) and so this "abstract God" thing is all just a smoke screen. The hidden premise isn't hidden anymore (i.e. - his REAL reason for believing is starting to show). Why can't these guys just be honest about the real reason they came to believe this stuff? At least William Lane Craig came out and admitted that his main reason for believing is the same as every other religion (some non-demonstrable, non-falsifiable, subjective personal experience/'testimony' of "The Hold Spirit" etc). So really, all of this intellectual masturbation they go through with us is just a front, a show, and a sham to distract from the truly bad reason they continue to "have faith".

-

[Lord Privy Seal]

Premise 1 is flawed: A carpenter can build a house where none previously existed.

As has already been pointed out, the house is a re-arrangement of pre-existing energy/matter. A carpenter cannot create a house from the non-existent.

Prior to Newton and Leibniz calculus did not exist, now it does.

Are you suggesting that cannonballs did not follow ballistic trajectories before Newton and Leibniz? "Calculus" is a mathematical description of the behavior of entities in Universe under certain conditions. So is "2+2=4." Such descriptions are discoveries, not "creation" from non-existence.

Just for Fun:
Define 'global universe'. What does it include and more specifically what, besides God and silly examples like pink unicorns, does it exclude?

Seeing Median's definition, I now must diverge from him a bit. I define "Universe" (capital-U, no "the") as the total of everything that exists, including any gods, goddesses, faeries, djinn, sprites, angels, demons, ghosts, dryads, spirits, etc. and so forth (whatever those might be, should any of them turn out to exist), as distinct from "the Cosmos" (everything that emerged from our Big Bang).

I see no need to try to "exclude" gods/goddesses a priori. However, before we can add the purported existence of any such entities to our inventory of the known, I think it is up to the claimant (the theist, the believer in faeries, etc.) to provide a coherent non-self-contradictory definition of what they're talking about, and provide sufficient evidence in favor of its existence. Basically, the same thing any scientist would need to do if they want to assert the existence of a new quantum particle. "Sufficient evidence" means that the evidence presented must rise to a level that makes the most sense of all observations, not just those in favor of the phenomenon. For example, a person who wanted to claim that Phlogiston does, in fact exist and is the proper explanation for thermodynamics would have a higher burden of proof than someone proposing a new flavor of Higgs boson that would explain cosmic inflation, but otherwise contradicts no solidly-validated observational evidence. In a nutshell: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Define the essential properties a real thing must have in order to exist.

This is one of those things that can result in endless philosophical tail-chasing. For the sake of simplicity, I'll go with two overlapping stipulations: "When you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away" (paraphrase of Philip K. Dick), and "it produces observable consequences that would not result if it did not exist" (paraphrase of a more extensive discussion by Eliezer Yudkowsky).

[median]

Just for clarity, I actually defined (roughly) the term "global universe" in the way I did, b/c I see absolutely no reason (and have been presented with absolutely no sound evidence) for thinking that anything non-physical and/or non-energetic exists. More precisely though, I'm not opposed to new things being demonstrated as existing. I just have no reason for thinking anything "supernatural" exists whatever, and have never (not once) been presented with anything close to being sufficient as evidence for such (in spite of the fact that I have been asking theists - and this alleged deity - for such evidence for nearly 20 years - even when I WAS a believer). Therefore, for me, the global universe is (generally) the entirety of all existent things which can be demonstrated (either through primary or secondary analysis).

If a theist wants me to include "God" (whatever that term means) within my definition then he/she will have to provide extraordinary evidence for such a claim. Indeed, I currently hold that the term "God" is incoherent and does not map, and/or refer, to anything in reality. Does the term "Blark Schmarbelfarben" map to anything in reality? I think not. Neither do the terms unicorn, fairy, Santa Claus, chupacabra, etc map to anything real either (or at least we have no good reason for thinking they do). Thus, to put it another way, we have no good reason for thinking anything immaterial exists. We only have experience of the material/energetic. Thus we are unjustified (thus far) in concluding that anything else exists.

p.s. - This idea that "God IS Existence" is just plain absurd. As Lord Privy Seal noted, the attributes theists attribute to their deities are nowhere near as vague and equivocal as such a weak definition implies. This definition puts the term "nature" and the term "God" in an indistinguishable relationship (enter Leibniz!). If God and nature are the same thing then stop calling it God, b/c that term is packed full of useless religious baggage.

[Simon Moon]

You hit upon the major fallacy that destroys the modus ponens of Kalam's (or any variant) Cosmological argument.

There is a big fat fallacy of equivocation in it. It equivocates the meaning of the phrase 'begins to exist'.

The first definition in P1 refers to creation ex-material, or in other words, rearrangement of existing matter/energy.

The second definition in P2 refers to creation ex-nihilo, or creation out of nothing.

There is also an equally bad fallacy of composition, in that it claims that since a part of the whole requires a cause, it also applies to the whole.

I still can't believe that so many theists think that the CA is such a strong argument.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I see once again god is equated with an abstract concept by Chad.

Not entirely. Some abstract concepts refer to real things. Some do not. The only reason I am participating in this thread is to better understand where nominalism breaks down.

…his debate tactics are intellectually dishonest …

That’s not a very nice thing to say. I’m willing to forgive you for calling me a liar and an asshole so we can have a civil discussion. Besides why does it matter if I do or do not have a hidden agenda? It has no bearing on the issue at hand.

… all of this intellectual masturbation they go through with us is just a front, a show, and a sham to distract from the truly bad reason they continue to "have faith".

I saw this thread as an opportunity to play philosophy, so why do you disrespect the conversation you started.

…the house is a re-arrangement of pre-existing energy/matter. A carpenter cannot create a house from the non-existent.

I am making the distinction between various types of cause. The shape of the house is the formal cause. The carpenter’s work is the efficient cause. The materials from which the house is made is the material cause. Which types of cause do you consider invalid and why?

…"Calculus" is a mathematical description of the behavior of entities in Universe under certain conditions…Such descriptions are discoveries, not "creation" from non-existence.

Which of these two statements best restates your this: Calculus has ontological status as something real, a pre-existing something waiting to be discovered. Or calculus is a convenient fiction that approximates reality.

…"I define "Universe" (capital-U, no "the") as the total of everything that exists…as distinct from "the Cosmos" (everything that emerged from our Big Bang)…

Fair enough. Do you think sensations are part of Universe? Most likely we agree that visible wavelength exist? But do you think ‘red’ has ontological status? Is sensation included in your definition of Universe?

…There is…a…fallacy of composition,…it claims that since a part of the whole requires a cause, it also applies to the whole.

You have a point. It all hinges around what you define the whole.

[median]

That’s not a very nice thing to say. I’m willing to forgive you for calling me a liar and an asshole so we can have a civil discussion. Besides why does it matter if I do or do not have a hidden agenda? It has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Your participation has "no bearing" in this discussion? LOL. I guees if you say so...

No, a hidden agenda (i.e. - a form of dishonesty) demonstrates at least two things; 1. that you are willing to engage in intellectual dishonesty in order to prop up a failing position, and 2.
that you don't really care whether or not your beliefs are actually true. It is a clear sign that you aren't interested in rational discourse (and/or attempting to come to a better knowledge of reality). You just want to believe, what you want to believe, b/c you want to believe.

So the question goes to YOU. Why are YOU engaging in this discussion if don't really care whether your beliefs are true? If you deny the premise of the question, then please demonstrate it's opposite by getting honest with yourself and others. Stop with the hidden agenda, and hidden reasons for belief, and start admitting when you don't know things. If you can't demonstrate the deity you claim to believe in (presumably Yahweh of the OT), then admit it. If you don't have good reason for the belief that some disembodied mind created our universe, admit it. And if your actual reason for believing the bible (in some form) is not these arguments you keep attempting, then stop giving them and provide the real reason. That will get you much further here than obfuscating will.