The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Belacqua]

I missed out begins to exist, which of course is still not objectively demonstrated, since it is only true of things we have understood within the physical temporal universe, and in every single case they are natural causes, despite this Lane Craig's version then posits an unevidenced deity using supernatural magic, not only does this not follow from the first premise, it has no explanatory powers whatsoever. It also violates Occam's razor, involves question begging and what looks suspiciously like a special pleading fallacy.

I'm also skeptical of Craig's version, since it seems to involve a temporal chain of causation. The Aristotelian/Thomist version is about essential causation, so it's very different. 

In fact Thomas Aquinas considers the Kalam version and rejects it in about half a page. Of course it wasn't called "Kalam" then. That's Craig's idea. The basic argument comes from Christian theologian John Philoponus (490–570 AD), though it didn't catch on much among Christians. That's why Craig had to get it from later Muslim thinkers.

[Sheldon]

And what of it. Whether wielded by Christians or Muslims it still has special pleading and non sequitur baked into it. Even a Phi101 student can see the rubbish.

Neither Craig, nor Augustine, nor Anselm, nor the Muslims can connect those two dots. That's not because one religion is right and the other wrong, that's because the argument is based on specious premises.

Well, they're all based on Aristotle's arguments as to why a chain of causation has to end somewhere. 

And remember that Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, with no beginning. The cause we're talking about here is not the beginning of a temporal chain.

Can you point out the flaws in Aristotle's argument to me?

I am not allowed to post links yet, but you can find any number of philosophical criticisms of Aristotle’s Theory Of Causation online. Russell and Nietzsche both wrote opposing arguments.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Many Christians use a First Cause argument to show that there is a first cause. 

Of course they think that the first cause is God. However, to show that God could be a first cause requires additional arguments.

It's obvious that the Kalam argument is Muslim. (Kalam is a kind of Islamic medieval Aristotelian theology.) These thinkers thought it applied to the Muslim God. Craig needs additional arguments to show that a Kalam-style first cause argument applies to the Christian God.

And what of it. Whether wielded by Christians or Muslims it still has special pleading and non sequitur baked into it. Even a Phi101 student can see the rubbish.

Neither Craig, nor Augustine, nor Anselm, nor the Muslims can connect those two dots. That's not because one religion is right and the other wrong, that's because the argument is based on specious premises.

It might even be said that the whole argument is a kalamity.

I’ll show myself out.

Boru

[Belacqua]

I am not allowed to post links yet, but you can find any number of philosophical criticisms of Aristotle’s Theory Of Causation online. Russell and Nietzsche both wrote opposing arguments.

OK, if we have two authorities that probably clinches it.


Do you happen to remember offhand what objective evidence Nietzsche uses to criticize causality?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I am not allowed to post links yet, but you can find any number of philosophical criticisms of Aristotle’s Theory Of Causation online. Russell and Nietzsche both wrote opposing arguments.

OK, if we have two authorities that probably clinches it.


Do you happen to remember offhand what objective evidence Nietzsche uses to criticize causality?

There’s actually a helluva lot more than two philosophers - not to mention a raft of physicists - who have criticized the argument.

You can use search engines as well as the rest of us.

Boru

[Sheldon]

I am not allowed to post links yet, but you can find any number of philosophical criticisms of Aristotle’s Theory Of Causation online. Russell and Nietzsche both wrote opposing arguments.

OK, if we have two authorities that probably clinches it.

Since I made no such claim, that's a straw man fallacy, and given your penchant for making bare appeals to authority, by name dropping philosophers, as of course you did here again, a pretty ironic one. Since you offered nothing here either, beyond the name of a philosopher and the title of one of his arguments? Then challenged others to argue against it, which was when I pointed out that opposing arguments abound, and named two philosophers of renown, who had written opposing arguments. 

Do you happen to remember offhand what objective evidence Nietzsche uses to criticize causality?

Since I didn't claim, or even imply anywhere, that their philosophical arguments contained any objective evidence, or even mention objective evidence at all, that is of course another straw man fallacy. You asked for flaws in Aristotle's arguments, despite not actually offering one word as to why you find it compelling, here it is then:

Can you point out the flaws in Aristotle's argument to me?

It seems you can make bare appeals to authority, but others must delve into detail. FYI anyone can disbelieve Aristotle's argument, this does not invoke a burden of proof, it is a common error in reasoning that seems in vogue among religious apologetics, to try and reverse their burden of proof by pretending disbelief or the lack of belief, represents a contrary claim, Lane Craig uses poorly reasoned arguments of that ilk often in debate.

[Belacqua]

Since I didn't claim, or even imply anywhere, that their philosophical arguments contained any objective evidence

I thought you only believe things for which there is objective evidence.

[Sheldon]

Since I didn't claim, or even imply anywhere, that their philosophical arguments contained any objective evidence

I thought you only believe things for which there is objective evidence.

Did I make any claims to believe or not believe those arguments? Are you trying to set some sort of record for straw man fallacies in a single thread?

I thought you didn't know what objective evidence means? Odd to ask for something when you don't know what it means?

Are we going to just skip past your two previous straw man fallacies? What am I saying, of course you're not going to even acknowledge your flawed reasoning.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I never wrote that you argued they must be believed (a fallacy itself, a strawman)

But you did write this: 

Could you tell me why you think he's right and everyone else in history must accept his pronuciamientos?

Despite your accusation, and your apparent backing away from it now, I have never argued that he is right, or that everyone else in history must accept what he said. 

Great, you just wanted to let me know Aristotle said this? You're a few decades late, but thanks for the effort.

In the context of the conversation, it looked like in asking me to point out Ari's flaw you were arguing that he wasn't. Are you saying then that you think he was? Be clear. Only the disingenuous are deliberately murky.

[Belacqua]

I thought you only believe things for which there is objective evidence.

Did I make any claims to believe or not believe those arguments? Are you trying to set some sort of record for straw man fallacies in a single thread?

I thought you didn't know what objective evidence means? Odd to ask for something when you don't know what it means?

Are we  going to just skip past your two previous straw man fallacies? What am I saying, of course you're not going to even acknowledge your flawed reasoning.

I see...

So Russell and Nietzsche wrote rebuttals to Aristotelian causality, but you don't believe the rebuttals, because they lack objective evidence. Is that right?