RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
March 18, 2015 at 3:42 pm
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2015 at 3:47 pm by Jenny A.)
I'm late to the party and everyone has done a brilliant job of refuting the First Cause argument generally and Kalaam's dressed up version in particular. I have just one note to add, and that is that I have no idea how to solve the conundrum of how things came to exist. The following propositions make my brain freeze:
1. Everything always existed.
2. Something or things have always existed.
3. Somethings sprang into existence out of nothing without apparent cause.
4. Everything sprang into existence out of nothing.
5. Something created something out of nothing.
6. Something created everything else out of nothing.
All of these propositions appear logically impossible in a cause driven universe which is the kind of universe Kaalam assumes. Kaalam's proof requires you believe that: propositions 2 and 5, and 6 are true but propositions 1, 3, and 4 are not. As all of the propositions appear logically impossible, I don't see how Kaalam can assume 2, 5, and 6 are true. To be plausible Kaalam would have to explain why propositions 2, 5, and 6 are possible while propositions but 1, 2, and 4 are not. He doesn't do that.
But even if he did, consider the following:
1. Granting all of Kaalam's argument (silly but just take it on faith for the moment) is there any indication whatsoever that this being the always existed before creating the universe still exists now? Perhaps it expired with the effort?
2. Is a first existing thing that creates necessarily even a being, let alone a god? And even if it were god, what kind of god would it be? This is no proof of a god, let alone the god the Christians worship. It attempts no more than proof of a first cause.
Note that the fact I can't choose among propositions 1-6 and doesn't prove anything in particular. I just don't find a need to label my confusion god.
Please do not feel attacked by answers to your question. You have no duty to refute the answers. But if some of them don't make sense by all means question.
1. Everything always existed.
2. Something or things have always existed.
3. Somethings sprang into existence out of nothing without apparent cause.
4. Everything sprang into existence out of nothing.
5. Something created something out of nothing.
6. Something created everything else out of nothing.
All of these propositions appear logically impossible in a cause driven universe which is the kind of universe Kaalam assumes. Kaalam's proof requires you believe that: propositions 2 and 5, and 6 are true but propositions 1, 3, and 4 are not. As all of the propositions appear logically impossible, I don't see how Kaalam can assume 2, 5, and 6 are true. To be plausible Kaalam would have to explain why propositions 2, 5, and 6 are possible while propositions but 1, 2, and 4 are not. He doesn't do that.
But even if he did, consider the following:
1. Granting all of Kaalam's argument (silly but just take it on faith for the moment) is there any indication whatsoever that this being the always existed before creating the universe still exists now? Perhaps it expired with the effort?
2. Is a first existing thing that creates necessarily even a being, let alone a god? And even if it were god, what kind of god would it be? This is no proof of a god, let alone the god the Christians worship. It attempts no more than proof of a first cause.
Note that the fact I can't choose among propositions 1-6 and doesn't prove anything in particular. I just don't find a need to label my confusion god.
Please do not feel attacked by answers to your question. You have no duty to refute the answers. But if some of them don't make sense by all means question.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
