"Time does not exist outside of the universe, so nothing can predate the universe."

[Pizza]

The Kalam argument is one big calamity - heaps of misguided appeals to "common sense" where it doesn't apply.

And yet I hear it uttered so often. It's so saddening. And people seem to like to throw a tantrum when it's refuted.

Speaking of which I recommend reading this series of blog posts criticizing the KCA. They are really interesting. http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogsp...ument.html

For example:

Reformulating the Principle of Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit
One way of reformulating the ex nihilo principle in order to strip it of temporal connotations would be the following:
(i) If nothing existed, then nothing could exist.
This is a statement of pure logical or metaphysical necessity. The “could” is a necessity operator: it tells you what must be the case. There are subsequently two ways of interpreting the necessity expressed in (i).
The “wide” interpretation is the following:
(ii) Necessarily, if nothing existed, nothing could exist.
This is actually just a trivial analytic truth. It says “when nothing exists, nothing exists.” This provides no support for the first premise of the Kalam.
The “narrow” interpretation is the following:
(iii) If nothing existed, then necessarily nothing could exist.
This is more interesting because it is ascribing a conditional power to “nothing.” It is saying that nothing prevents the existence of something. The problem is that it is difficult to say why nothing would have such a conditional power. Surely it makes more sense to say that nothing has no powers at all, including the power to prevent something?

What at first looked like a straightforward commonsensical claim stops making sense once you start probing it.

[Pyrrho]

The Kalam argument is one big calamity - heaps of misguided appeals to "common sense" where it doesn't apply.

And yet I hear it uttered so often. It's so saddening. And people seem to like to throw a tantrum when it's refuted.

I think it is useful to understand why such arguments are presented in the first place. They are not the source of belief, they are a prop to belief. They are intended to make a preexisting belief seem reasonable. As such, they are often readily believed by those who already accept the conclusion. (It should be noted, however, that not all Christians just have shit for brains, as some of them, like Immanuel Kant, rejected many such arguments, and is sometimes quoted in some of his refutations of some so-called "proofs" of God's existence.)

Many people get very confused regarding arguments, such that they conflate the truth or falsehood of the conclusion with the validity of the argument. Those are very different things, so it is very worthwhile to keep them separate in one's mind. If a Christian does that, then he or she need not be upset over a particular argument being refuted. Showing that the cosmological argument for the existence of god (in any of its forms) is a huge pile of crap does not prove that there is no god. So they should, like Kant, sensibly reject the pile of crap themselves and accept the fact that the cosmological argument is not a good reason to believe in a god. It is virtually certain that they already had a belief in a god before they ever encountered that argument (or, if you prefer, group of arguments, all of which are basically different wordings for the same sorts of mistakes). So they should just let it go.

The problem with that, of course, is that the same is true for all of the other traditional arguments for the existence of god, and many people want there to be some reason to believe in god, rather than just taking it on faith (i.e., belief without evidence), though, ironically, they typically also say one should have faith, which is an implicit admission that there really isn't any good reason to believe. After all, if you have a good reason to believe something, you don't need faith.

[FreeTony]

Even if Kalam is true, then so what. Something caused the universe, therefore God?

It's a bit like saying in a murder trial "Someone murdered the victim, therefore person X did it, and person X is also an invisible magical pixie"

[ReptilianPeon]

Speaking of which I recommend reading this series of blog posts criticizing the KCA.
They are really interesting. http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogsp...ument.html

I have two ways in which I would counter the Kalam argument.

Firstly, I've seen that it's a favorite argument of converts to Muhammad's religion. It's the go-to argument for them. And yet, when I see these personalities talk about why they converted to their new religion they never give Kalam as a reason for them believing that their new religion is "the truth". They always give reasons besides Kalam and yet they talk about Kalam when they give seminars on how to "convince irreligious people". Even amongst people who aren't converts, Kalam never seems to feature amongst the reasons why they believe their religion to be the right one. They Kalam argument only appears when Theists are conversing with irreligious people.

So, with that in mind, if the person I'm talking to admits/concedes that they didn't come to the conclusion that their religion is the right one based on Kalam I would immediately ask them: Why you are trying to convince me with arguments that didn't convince you that your religion is the right one? With the first point of attack you can probably force the believer into talking about their religious text(s) and avoid Kalam entirely. That way, if you're knowledgeable about their religious text(s), you can immediately delve into a more meaningful discussion.

Secondly, the Kalam argument William Lane-Craig is the same Kalam that the coverts I mentioned above use. The Kalam argument can be applied to any deity of any religion. So my second point of attack would be there isn't anything within the Kalam arguiment which alludes to any particular deity. The Kalam argument doesn't have enough meat to it and the believer will force their favorite deity into Kalam even though there is no reason for them to do so. It's amazing how one argument can have so many different conclusions. So I would proceed to tell the believer that the Kalam argument they are using can be applied to any religion and used by anybody regardless of which deity is their favorite.

With those two points of attack, in my opinion, there is really no need to go into a discussion about cosmology.

[vorlon13]

Without time, would everything happen all at once, or would nothing happen at all ??

[IATIA]

"Time does not exist outside of the universe", hm.

And that is true.

Let us take one single photon and put it inside an infinity with nothing but space.

Where is the time? We know the photon is traveling at 3.0 x 10E8/sec. and from the photon's point of view, time does not pass. The photon does not age, does not disperse, does not degrade, it just exists at 3.0 x 10E8/sec. At any point in 'time' the photon is no closer or further away from the 'center' of the infinity. Time is nothing more than relative motion. And without a point of reference, motion does not exist either.

Put a second photon in this infinite space and now we have relative motion. Wha la, we have 'time'.

[Mudhammam]

In other words, the title of the thread is saying that the Universe is the Alpha and Omega.

[psychoslice]

For me personally there is no such thing as time, where did it come from, or minds of course.

[ReptilianPeon]

"Time does not exist outside of the universe", hm.

And that is true.

Let us take one single photon and put it inside an infinity with nothing but space.

Where is the time? We know the photon is traveling at 3.0 x 10E8/sec. and from the photon's point of view, time does not pass. The photon does not age, does not disperse, does not degrade, it just exists at 3.0 x 10E8/sec. At any point in 'time' the photon is no closer or further away from the 'center' of the infinity. Time is nothing more than relative motion. And without a point of reference, motion does not exist either.

Put a second photon in this infinite space and now we have relative motion. Wha la, we have 'time'.

Personally, I prefer the arguments against the Kalam argument I detailed in my above post. There are various ways to refute the Kalam argument but I'd rather not get into a discussion about physics with a believer. The reason they believe their religion is correct is never because of the Kalam argument so I would want to shift the discussion to their religious text(s) as quickly as possible. That's where I can have some fun. Take Quran 2:73 for example. It's saying a murdered person was resurrected when they were struck with a piece of beef (hiefer).