tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post114114238777450263..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Kalam Cosmological Argument--Premise OneUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141706619288448962006-03-06T23:43:00.000-05:002006-03-06T23:43:00.000-05:00ian,Welcome to Debunking Christianity. Thanks for...ian,<BR/><BR/>Welcome to Debunking Christianity. Thanks for you help on this one. I really didn't have time to comment here, but when I am so horribly misunderstand I can't help but say something.<BR/><BR/>Please visit and comment often.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141692248199210802006-03-06T19:44:00.000-05:002006-03-06T19:44:00.000-05:00calvindude,I hope this gets through somehow.1) The...calvindude,<BR/><BR/>I hope this gets through somehow.<BR/><BR/>1) The Kalam Cosmological Argument claims to be a proof of God's existence.<BR/><BR/>2) It claims that the universe has to have a cause of existence.<BR/><BR/>3) It goes on to explain why this cause has to be the Christian God (or one like the Christian God).<BR/><BR/>4) As one of the many possible refutations of the cosmological argument, I demonstrate that the first premise is not <B><I>necessarily</B></I> true.<BR/><BR/>5) I attempted to demonstrate (and feel I did a good job doing so) that the universe does not <B><I>necessarily</B></I> have to have a cause.<BR/><BR/>6) I do this by constructing a possible (though not necessarily plausible) scenario in which the universe could have been uncaused.<BR/><BR/>7) I stated that this was not my belief about how the universe actually came into existence, but only a refutation of the KCA's first premise.<BR/><BR/>8) You wrote, "you have exactly as much proof for a yniverse as you do for...well, pink unicorns on Pluto."<BR/><BR/>9) I agree with this. The yniverse has as much proof as pink unicorns on Pluto AND as much proof as the existence of the Christian God.<BR/><BR/>10) What you missed was that I was not attempting to prove that a yniverse existed, but only that it is another possibility that is just as plausible as the Christian belief in God.<BR/><BR/>11) You wrote, "Tell me again why this is more rational than believing in God?"<BR/><BR/>12) There are other arguments (e.g. the problem of evil, evidence against cognitive dualism, etc.) that demonstrate that God is an exceptionally irrational solution to problems . . .<BR/><BR/>13) BUT, I am not trying to argue for the rationality of a yniverse.<BR/><BR/>14) I'm only demonstrating that the KCA fails to prove that the universe has a cause for its existence because the KCA leaves out the possibility that the universe is "uncaused" in the scenario I mentioned in the post.<BR/><BR/>15) I am not attempting to explain the origin of the universe, because I'm not sure that we can ever know the origin of the universe because our tool for understanding the universe (i.e. physics) does not work for attempts to understand the universe's origin (physics presupposes a universe).<BR/><BR/>16) By showing that this argument is invalid, I have gotten one step closer to demonstrating that "you have exactly as much proof for a [God] as you do for...well, pink unicorns on Pluto."<BR/><BR/>While I'm at it, let me point out the ways that you have misunderstood me so far (I'm sure you've done the same in your dialogues with John, but I don't have the patience to read them).<BR/><BR/>You write, "Instead of God you can posit a yniverse!"<BR/><BR/>The fact that you meant this ironically, demonstrates your misunderstanding. I don't propose that anyone believes in a yniverse. I doubt very seriously that a yniverse exists. The <I><B>possibility</I></B> (not probability) of a yniverse, however, defeats the KCA.<BR/><BR/>You write, "you have exactly as much proof for a yniverse as you do for...well, pink unicorns on Pluto."<BR/><BR/>I never suggested there was any proof of a yniverse. There doesn't need to be a yniverse in order to defeat the KCA. If a yniverse is possible, however, the KCA is defeated.<BR/><BR/>You write, "Tell me again why this is more rational than believing in God?"<BR/><BR/>Well, on one hand the yniverse is more rational than believing in a God, because there is not strong evidence <I>against</I> a yniverse.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, a yniverse is just as irrational as belieing in a God because there is as little proof for a yniverse as there is for a God.<BR/><BR/>You write, "I am merely pointing out that if you accept a yniverse, you might as well accept God because, according to the rules YOU set up, you'd have equal proof for both."<BR/><BR/>Here you are attempting to "point out" something that was blaringly implicit in my post. I think you are the only one who read this and thought that my imaginary "yniverse" was an attempted answer to the origin of the universe. No one else seemed to have difficulty understanding the "yniverse" as an hypothetical used to defeat the KCA.<BR/><BR/>You write, "Oh, so mere 'possibility' is all that's needed? None of that 'Ockham's razor' stuff for us, eh."<BR/><BR/>Yes, a mere possibility is all that is required. Why? Because the KCA relies on the premise that a physical law from within the universe must apply to the universe itself. If a yniverse is possible, though, the argument fails.<BR/><BR/>You're Ockham's Razor comment is futher evidence that you have no idea what I stated in this post.<BR/><BR/>My post is very limited in scope. It discusses the KCA only. I am not trying to give a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe. Only if I were doing so would your mention of Ockham's Razor be appropriate (but then, I'm afraid, it would still work against the person positing a disembodied mind over the person positing a yniverse with different physical laws).<BR/><BR/>You write, "If you use this argument to disprove the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and let's just pretend that it does just that), the result is that you've left me with an argument wherein God exists with just as much probability as your theoretical yniverse."<BR/><BR/>A comparison of my "yniverse" and your "god" doesn't land in your favor. I am not claiming that the yniverse is probable, only possible. If it is possible, the KCA fails.<BR/><BR/>My explanation of the origin of the unverse is "[*shrug*]." I don't know. It's possible that humanity will never know.<BR/><BR/>It is not "god" against the "yniverse." It is "god" against "I don't know."<BR/><BR/>I think "I don't know," is a much more reasonable answer than, "Big Bad Sky Daddy."<BR/><BR/>You write, "In other words, your 'refutation' of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is only possible if you grant equal possibility that God exists."<BR/><BR/>No, no, no! Read everything that I've just written. . . No, on second thought, don't read anything that I've written. Go read someone else's blog and misinterpret them. I really don't have time for this.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141686576521421752006-03-06T18:09:00.000-05:002006-03-06T18:09:00.000-05:00ian,It's POSSIBLE that you don't exist and I hallu...ian,<BR/><BR/>It's POSSIBLE that you don't exist and I hallucinated your post. It's POSSIBLE that exbeliever is really a Mormon and he's just pretending to be an atheist because he gets his kicks out of it (and all his statements to deny this would just be more proof of how much he gets his kicks out of it). It's POSSIBLE that George Bush is listening in on your phone-line right now! And it's POSSIBLE that your argument made sense to someone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141683820330123652006-03-06T17:23:00.000-05:002006-03-06T17:23:00.000-05:00John wrote:"I get the impression here that you do ...John wrote:<BR/><BR/>"I get the impression here that you do not believe time can be defined. Am I wrong?"<BR/><BR/>Well, you haven't defined it yet. :-) No one I've read has defined it yet without a self-referential definition (such as the idea of motion, which again is an object with velocity, velocity being distance/time.).<BR/><BR/>In fact, using those equations, we could define time as Time = Distance/Velocity, but that doesn't remove the self-referential aspect, since Velocity itself is still time-based.<BR/><BR/>"Then how does this affect what you believe about the Kalam?"<BR/><BR/>It doesn't affect my belief in the Kalam at all since I don't hold to the Kalam argument in the first place. Again, my point is that if exbeliever is going to argue in this manner, he opens himself up to saying that God is at least as possible as his yniverse theory.<BR/><BR/>"I think time is a function of matter, just like Einstein leads us to think."<BR/><BR/>Well, great. What is that function? How does it operate? What *IS* it? <BR/><BR/>"And this is what I was referring to when I had asked how God can know what time it is in our universe."<BR/><BR/>Of course, you still need to define time, so we can't really answer whether that is a contradiction yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141682203194541082006-03-06T16:56:00.000-05:002006-03-06T16:56:00.000-05:00Calvindude: But I DEFY you to try to define time. ...Calvindude: <I>But I DEFY you to try to define time.</I> <BR/><BR/>I get the impression here that you do not believe time can be defined. Am I wrong?<BR/><BR/>Then how does this affect what you believe about the Kalam? For the Kalam to work you have to know what time is and effectively argue for it.<BR/><BR/>Craig has used up a lot of ink debating the nature of time. He thinks he knows what time is.<BR/><BR/>I think time is a function of matter, just like Einstein leads us to think. <BR/><BR/>According to him, time is a relative concept. There is no absolute time througout the universe. There is only "local time." "Now" does not exist at the same instant for all spots of the universe.<BR/><BR/>And this is what I was referring to when I had asked how God can know what time it is in our universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141679393124272742006-03-06T16:09:00.000-05:002006-03-06T16:09:00.000-05:00Exbeliever:"Once again you demonstrate your horrif...Exbeliever:<BR/><BR/>"Once again you demonstrate your horrific inability to read and understand anything that I write! It's really quite astounding."<BR/><BR/>I could claim that it's the writer's fault. But I won't because I understood you exactly (see below).<BR/><BR/>"I'm not saying that this is what I believe happened"<BR/><BR/>Nor did I say you were. You can re-read my post. It starts out "I get it. Instead of God you *CAN* posit a yniverse!" (emphasis added). It doesn't say, "You *DO* posit a yniverse."<BR/><BR/>I am merely pointing out that if you accept a yniverse, you might as well accept God because, according to the rules YOU set up, you'd have equal proof for both.<BR/><BR/>"I'm not positing a yniverse, I'm simply demonstrating that the first premise of the cosmological argument cannot be maintained because of the possibility of a yniverse."<BR/><BR/>(Oh, so mere "possibility" is all that's needed? None of that "Ockham's razor" stuff for us, eh?) :-)<BR/><BR/>Let me be clear with what I'm saying in my response. If you use this argument to disprove the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and let's just pretend that it does just that), the result is that you've left me with an argument wherein God exists with just as much probability as your theoretical yniverse. In other words, your "refutation" of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is only possible if you grant equal possibility that God exists. If you want to refute a theory about how God exists with another theory that can demonstrate God does exist, go for it. I won't stop you, I'll just point it out. :-)<BR/><BR/><BR/>JOHN:<BR/>"Not to me. If this is the same type of contradiction as you seem to indicate, then how can your God act in time?"<BR/><BR/>You still haven't defined time. It's like me asking if you can act in uhalibma. Well, can you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141677931447476772006-03-06T15:45:00.000-05:002006-03-06T15:45:00.000-05:00Finally, you said: "(and who also knows what time ...<I>Finally, you said: "(and who also knows what time it is everywhere in our universe even though time is a function of movement and bodily placement)."<BR/><BR/>This, of course, is about as intelligent as asking if God could create a stone too large for Him to lift.</I><BR/><BR/>Not to me. If this is the same type of contradiction as you seem to indicate, then how can your God act in time?<BR/><BR/><B>In essence, Calvin, you too presuppose a yniverse. Yep, that's right, although yours is your God.</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141677485220306162006-03-06T15:38:00.000-05:002006-03-06T15:38:00.000-05:00calvindude,Once again you demonstrate your horrifi...calvindude,<BR/><BR/>Once again you demonstrate your horrific inability to read and understand anything that I write! It's really quite astounding.<BR/><BR/>I guess you missed the last full paragraph where I said, "<I><B>I'm not saying that this is what I believe happened</B></I>, but I'm simply pointing out that just because it is the case that everything that comes into existence within the universe has a cause, that does not mean that the universe itself had to have a cause."<BR/><BR/>I'm not positing a yniverse, I'm simply demonstrating that the first premise of the cosmological argument cannot be maintained because of the <I><B>possibility</I></B> of a yniverse.<BR/><BR/>Do you want to know how I think the universe came about? I don't know. I don't know if we can ever know. Our "physics" assumes the existence of the universe. Before the universe, there was no universe, so our physics will have nothing to say about it.<BR/><BR/>It may just be that we can never know how the universe came into existence (though super string theory looks promising). <BR/><BR/>But do I posit something ridiculous to explain the origin of the universe just because I can't know its origin? That's exactly what you are doing. <BR/><BR/>My position is that I don't know the origin of the universe. I'm okay with that. I don't need pink unicorns or Big Sky Daddy to take away all ambiguities for me.<BR/><BR/>Isn't there someone else you can misread for a while. It's getting old for me.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141677331795904012006-03-06T15:35:00.000-05:002006-03-06T15:35:00.000-05:00JOHN WROTE:"(even though our entire experience is ...JOHN WROTE:<BR/><BR/>"(even though our entire experience is that everything has a beginning and an ending)"<BR/><BR/>You must not have read the post this is in comment to. Your argument here is no more logical than the Creationist saying: "Everything in our entire experience has a cause." So if it's not good for the Creationist, why is it suddenly good for you to use these arguments?<BR/><BR/>By the way, you already know the 1 in 3 is not a contradiction because God is one BEING with three PERSONS and "being" does not equal "person." <BR/><BR/>Likewise, you said: "[God is]with all power (but doesn’t exercise it like we would if we saw a burning child)". To which I simply respond: so what? Who made you ruler over how God uses His power? If God is different then us, again: so what? That doesn't prove He's not real simply because He doesn't exist as YOU'D like Him to exist.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you said: "(and who also knows what time it is everywhere in our universe even though time is a function of movement and bodily placement)."<BR/><BR/>This, of course, is about as intelligent as asking if God could create a stone too large for Him to lift.<BR/><BR/>But I DEFY you to try to define time. You already said it's a function of movement. Let's examine that. What is movement? It's an object that goes from one place to another at a certain velocity. And what is velocity? Distance/Time. That's right, you've got *TIME* there. In other words, your definition boils down to: "time is a function of movement [an object moving a specific distance in a specific amount of TIME]". It is a circular definition to define time as a process of movement already presupposes the existence of time.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, God does not know logical impossibilities (e.g. God does not "know" a square circle). God's omniscience does not include the irrational, and no Christian worth his salt will say that it does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141676347480354432006-03-06T15:19:00.000-05:002006-03-06T15:19:00.000-05:00Calvindude:Tell me again why this is more rational...Calvindude:<BR/><I>Tell me again why this is more rational than believing in God?</I> <BR/><BR/>That's fairly easy.<BR/><BR/>The Triune God in the Bible simply cannot be describing the God who exists. I find it implausible to believe that a Triune (3 in 1?) God has always and forever existed without cause and will always and forever exist (even though our entire experience is that everything has a beginning and an ending) as a fully formed being (even though our entire experience is that order grows incrementally) with all knowledge (and consequently never learned anything), with all power (but doesn’t exercise it like we would if we saw a burning child), and who is present everywhere (and who also knows what time it is everywhere in our universe even though time is a function of movement and bodily placement).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141675293386226212006-03-06T15:01:00.000-05:002006-03-06T15:01:00.000-05:00I get it. Instead of God you can posit a yniverse...I get it. Instead of God you can posit a yniverse! It seems to me, from your worldview, that you have exactly as much proof for a yniverse as you do for...well, pink unicorns on Pluto. (After all, if a yniverse is outside our universe, then it's impossible for us to know anything about it anyway.) <BR/><BR/>Tell me again why this is more rational than believing in God?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141596645856065052006-03-05T17:10:00.000-05:002006-03-05T17:10:00.000-05:00I've found that pretty much all theists use "logic...I've found that pretty much all theists use "logical" arguments that are either tautologies or presuppositional. Any time you find a theist trying to argue the existence of God from a logical point of view, chances are extremely high that you can win by showing that their argument is either circular or requires supposition of the first premise and is therefore invalid.mathyoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13969636014840275570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141511763881094572006-03-04T17:36:00.000-05:002006-03-04T17:36:00.000-05:00Here is my own refutation of Kalam :http://www.str...Here is my own refutation of Kalam :<BR/><BR/>http://www.strongatheism.net/library/counter_apologetics/craigs_unsupported_premise/Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1141486970726086692006-03-04T10:42:00.000-05:002006-03-04T10:42:00.000-05:00I won't be available this week to defend this argu...I won't be available this week to defend this argument myself. Please don't take my non-response personally. I just have too much on my plate right now.<BR/><BR/>Hopefully, another atheist (or theist, for that matter) will find the argument compelling enough to defend.exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.com