Not that its worth much but my take is that I really like aspects of philosophy and that it can be really helpful in clarifying thinking, yet, at other times it just seems to be a road block where rivalling factions of philosophers go way off the original point (whatever it was) to discuss esoteric elements that almost no-one outside of philosophy can understand - least of all, me.

It also seems that at times when I attempt to argue against some philosophical argument or other that I'm told I am not arguing in the right way - even when the point appears valid to me. Its only occasionally that one of you guys (or gals) deigns to dumb it down so I can get it.

If I was going to argue against the Kalam argument, above I'd say:

P1 is actually unsound. Everything that begins to exist has a cause within the universe. Outside of it we really have no idea. We don't know if time exists outside of the universe, or if it does, how it works. For example whilst within the universe cause precedes effect it might work in reverse outside the universe - or in a totally unrelated way.

To me that Kalam argument is rooted in the idea that our common knowledge, logic and experience can be applied to everything. This is simply not the case. Anyone with even the briefest familiarity with Quantum Physics knows that logic doesn't apply and it all goes crazy.

Now heaven only knows if I can argue that way, philosophically speaking - even if it does make scientific sense.

The universe is in the set of "everything". We do not know whether the universe, if it began to exist, had a cause. Therefore we cannot say everything that begins to exist has a cause. Just because everything we have observed so far has been seen to have a cause, it doesn't mean everything does. If his everything doesn't include the universe, then it doesn't work. It's like saying that all underwater animals breathe through gills that have so far been discovered, therefore all future ones will. (Assuming we hadn't discovered dolphins etc)

I think an analogy of the argument is this. I have 10 beads, of which I can see only 9 and those 9 are all white.

P1: All beads are white
P2: Bead 10 is a bead
C: Bead 10 is white

The flaw being I have to observe bead 10 in order to make P1 valid. But then I don't need the argument, for I have seen that bead 10 is white.

I also don't agree with Craig saying actual infinites do not exist (depending on the definition of infinite), but I won't go into that here. Actually thinking about it, "begins to exist" is also a very sloppy term and could mean almost anything subject to a persons understanding of it.

The point I'm trying to make is that any philosophy that tries to infer something new about the material world, has to be based on some sort of observation of the universe we live in. This is very problematic as we don't really understand the universe very well, and our observations are very very limited. This is why we run into difficulties understanding things like QM and Relativity.

By the real world, I was talking about science, should have used something different perhaps.

(February 6, 2014 at 5:22 am)FreeTony Wrote: Just out of interest are things like the Kalam argument for God considered proper philosophy?

Let's take the WLC Kalam argument:

P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2 The Universe began to exist.
C Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Firstly P1 and P2 must be demonstrated to be true. In order to do that you have to examine the physical world and find evidence for them. Neither P1 nor P2 have been tested in any way. Not only that but in order to make P1 valid, you'd have to first test that the Universe has a cause as the Universe is part of "everything". So it's completely pointless as if you'd managed to test the Universe has a cause, you wouldn't need the argument in the first place.

Some philosophy seems to deal purely with ideas, which I have no problem with and is useful. It is when it starts getting applied to the real world, like above, that it all breaks down. Take Zeno's paradox. It is easy to show it is wrong if you understand calculus, but it was probably useful in that it got people thinking about infinitesimal quantities.

They're considered historical Philosophic Ontological Arguments, but they're also hopelessly flawed. The same argument has been presented for centuries in slightly different forms. These arguments are related to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.

All forms of it have problems, because it presupposes the conclusion in the premise, without support.

Nonetheless, contemporary thinkers like Alvin Plantinga, an Epistemologist, like to trot out the KCA as if it's a real argument.

You'd think that people invested in the study of what qualifies as knowledge would be a little more logical.

(February 6, 2014 at 11:50 am)FreeTony Wrote: The universe is in the set of "everything". We do not know whether the universe, if it began to exist, had a cause. Therefore we cannot say everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Again, the set Craig is referencing is not "everything". The set is "everthing that begins/began to exist", which he says must have a cause for its existence if its existence had a beginning.

Quote:Just because everything we have observed so far has been seen to have a cause, it doesn't mean everything does. If his everything doesn't include the universe, then it doesn't work.

He obviously isn't saying EVERYTHING began to exist. Do you think Craig believes God began to exist? Of course not. Craig's fundamental claim is to say that the regress of causes and effects must logically terminate at a beginning and that only God can be that termination point.

Quote:It's like saying that all underwater animals breathe through gills that have so far been discovered, therefore all future ones will. (Assuming we hadn't discovered dolphins etc)

I agree, that's a problem with the argument.

Quote:I think an analogy of the argument is this. I have 10 beads, of which I can see only 9 and those 9 are all white.

P1: All beads are white
P2: Bead 10 is a bead
C: Bead 10 is white

The flaw being I have to observe bead 10 in order to make P1 valid. But then I don't need the argument, for I have seen that bead 10 is white.

I also don't agree with Craig saying actual infinites do not exist (depending on the definition of infinite), but I won't go into that here. Actually thinking about it, "begins to exist" is also a very sloppy term and could mean almost anything subject to a persons understanding of it.

Craig's definition of "begins to exist" is something like "X 'begins to exist', if and only X exists at time T, prior to which X did not exist". There are definitely problems there, and even Craig has realized that and amended it some (poorly).

Quote:The point I'm trying to make is that any philosophy that tries to infer something new about the material world, has to be based on some sort of observation of the universe we live in. This is very problematic as we don't really understand the universe very well, and our observations are very very limited. This is why we run into difficulties understanding things like QM and Relativity.

To be fair, Craig's argument is a metaphysical argument and isn't really inferring anything new about the material world. Craig emphatically states that the argument concludes that there must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal and enormously powerful creator of the universe. Granted, that's bullshit but we must needs critique him correctly.

I think philosophers have recognized that for centuries. That's why I said Craig (and Kalam in particular) is philosophy as if from 300-400 years ago. Philosophers have long since realized this sort of metaphysical speculation is flawed bullshit thanks to David Hume and Immanuel Kant (amomg others).

Every 'proof' of God comes down to some sort of word game.

Philosophy irritates me a lot. It's useless, annoying, bullshit.

(February 6, 2014 at 2:27 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Again, the set Craig is referencing is not "everything". The set is "everthing that begins/began to exist", which he says must have a cause for its existence if its existence had a beginning.

I do understand his argument, honestly. What I'm saying is you can't infer the properties of one thing from another, which is what he is trying to do.

P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2 The universe begins to exist. It is therefore in the set of everything that begins to exist, but that it has a cause has not been tested, therefore P1 is not necesarrily true. It must be tested in order for P1 to hold, but once tested there is no need for the argument.

(February 6, 2014 at 2:55 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Philosophy irritates me a lot. It's useless, annoying, bullshit.

It has lots of uses.

(February 6, 2014 at 2:58 pm)FreeTony Wrote: I do understand his argument, honestly. What I'm saying is you can't infer the properties of one thing from another, which is what he is trying to do.

P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2 The universe begins to exist. It is therefore in the set of everything that begins to exist, but that it has a cause has not been tested, therefore P1 is not necesarrily true. It must be tested in order for P1 to hold, but once tested there is no need for the argument.

Craig's contention that the universe has a cause for it's existence is not entirely an extrapolation from common experience. He believes that Big Bang cosmolpgy supports this view, and would likely use further arguments like fine-tuning to bolster that. Granted, all bullshit. And I hope I'm not coming off as a complete ass here. :/

No, you're not, don't worry. Trying to get ideas across on a forum is quite tricky - this is probably what leads to so many arguments.

Isn't WLC meant to be the number one apologist? I've no idea, I just got that impression, but I don't think I'd even heard of Apologists until recently.