Hello,
What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?
Yes---one---it is the same old God of the gaps of our knowledge argument.
The Kal?m cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a first cause for the universe, and the existence of a god. Its origins can be traced to medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most directly to Islamic theologians of the Kal?m tradition. Its historic proponents include John Philoponus, Al-Kindi,Saadia Gaon, Al-Ghazali, and St. Bonaventure. William Lane Craig revived interest in the Kal?m cosmological argument with his 1979 publication of a book of the same name.
The argument postulates that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and this first cause must be God.
The Kal?m argument was named after the Kal?m tradition of Islamic discursive philosophy through which it was first formulated. In Arabic, the word Kal?m means "words, discussion, discourse."
The cosmological argument was first introduced by Aristotle and later refined by Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). In Western Europe, it was adopted by the Christian theologian Bonaventure (See Craig, 1979, p 18). Another form of this argument is based on the concept of a prime-mover, which was also propounded by Averroes.
His premise was that every motion must be caused by another motion, and the earlier motion must in turn be a result of another motion and so on. He argued that there must be an initial prime-mover, a mover that could cause motion without any other mover. One of the earliest formations of the Kal?m argument comes from Al-Ghazali, who wrote, "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."
Two kinds of Islamic perspectives may be considered with regard to the cosmological argument. A positive Aristotelian response strongly supporting the argument and a negative response which is quite critical of it. Among the Aristotelian thinkers are Al-Kindi, and Averroes. In contrast Al-Ghazali and Muhammad Iqbal may be seen as being in opposition to this sort of an argument.
Al-Kindi is one of the many major and first Islamic philosophers who attempt to introduce an argument for the existence of God based upon purely empirical premises. In fact, his chief contribution is the cosmological argument (dalil al-huduth) for the existence of God, in his On First Philosophy.
Al-Ghazzali was unconvinced by the first-cause arguments of Kindi. In response to them he writes: "According to the hypothesis under consideration, it has been established that all the beings in the world have a cause. Now, let the cause itself have a cause, and the cause of the cause have yet another cause, and so on ad infinitum. It does not behove you to say that an infinite regress of causes is impossible."
Al-Kindi's argument has been taken up by some contemporary Western philosophers and dubbed the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Among its chief proponents today is William Lane Craig.
The Kal?m argument is applied by the spiritist doctrine as the main argument for the existence of God.
Argument
Classical argument
Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence.
Contemporary argument
William Lane Craig
William Lane Craig formulates the argument with an additional set of premises:
Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite
An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition
A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
The argument has seen some revival within Christian apologetics and among some philosophers, but has been criticized by such philosophers as J. L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, and Quentin Smith, and physicists Paul Davies, Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger.
William Lane Craig argues that the first premise is strongly supported by intuition and experience. He asserts that it is "intuitively obvious", based on the "metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing". Additionally, Craig argues the first premise is affirmed by interaction with the physical world; for if it were false, it would be impossible to explain why things do not still randomly pop into existence without a cause.
Stenger has argued that quantum mechanics refutes the first premise of the argument, that is, that something can not come into being from nothing. He postulates that such naturally occurring quantum events violate this premise, like the Casimir effect and radioactive decay. Craig disagrees with physicists on the definition of "nothing", and has responded to Stenger that particles which appear due to these effects are not really created from "nothing", but rather, a quantum vacuum which contains energy to permit for the spontaneous existence of matter.
Craig asserts that it is logically impossible for the number of past events to be infinite, and therefore the universe must have a definite beginning to its existence. From the position of Cosmology, Craig cites the Big Bang theory as evidence for the second premise. He argues in favor of the Big Bang being interpreted as the temporal beginning of the universe, criticizing models which suggest differently, such as the Cyclic model, vacuum fluctuation models, and the Hartle–Hawking state model.
Ghazali thought that it is at least theoretically possible for there to be an infinite regress, and that there is nothing that necessitates a first-cause simply by pure deductive reason. He thus disputes one of the essential premises of the first-cause argument. Muhammad Iqbal also rejects the argument, stating: "a finite effect can give only a finite cause, or at most an infinite series of such causes. To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an un-caused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds."
Craig's argument concludes, through a process of elimination known more formally as modus tollens, that the cause of the universe must be a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being, which Craig defines as God.
According to Craig, another objection comes from the B-theory of time. On a B-theory of time, the universe doesn't come into being, it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block, and so the Kal?m cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time.
More recently it was used by Muslim apologist Hamza Andreas Tzortzis in his debate with Lawrence Krauss. Lawrence Krauss tried to show Hamza that this argument was flawed by showing him that infinity does exist and by using this argument Hamza was using an argument from ignorance (god of the gaps). However Professor Krauss was unable to show Hamza an actual infinite and was only able to explain to him a theoretical/mathametical infinite (Pi).
Solitary
Hi,
I don't think that the Kalam argument is in any way a god-of-the-gaps argument. It rests on the metaphysical properties of the universe, which are beyond the scope of the scientific method. Because science deals only with the physical properties of the world, not with its metaphysical properties.
Sure, sometimes what we thought was metaphysics was in fact just crappy science. But then it does not allow us to jump to the conclusion that everything is open to scientific investigation, that metaphysics is just poor, muddled science. Besides, sometimes what parades as science is just poor philosophy, so the score is even.
We need not say that the Big Bang is REALLY the beginning of the universe to endorse the Kalam argument. We may believe in whatever quantum vacuum you want: the argument would remain unscathed. A scientist may go back any number of steps she wants in the past, it is irrelevant to the Kalam argument.
The design argument IS a god-of-the-gaps argument, but not the Kalam argument in its metaphysical version.
Quote from: "Krampus"Hello,
What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?
The KCA's premise "an actual infinite cannot exist" doesn't have any (significant) supporting evidence, is not tautological, and is not self-evident. We already have
inductive (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning) reasons to let go of this premise, considering that each individual sees an exceedingly small portion of the Universe. The work necessary to confirm it may not be infinite, but it is so huge that it's not practical to take the idea seriously.
It's poop.
It's basically a first cause argument and I take all first cause arguments as an admission of defeat. They can't prove their gods any other way, so they resort to an area they believe to be not well understood.
If anyone gives you the kca, you can disregard everything they say, including "Look out for that bus!" They're probably lying about that, too.
Quote from: "Krampus"I don't think that the Kalam argument is in any way a god-of-the-gaps argument.
I'm gonna stop you right there. The KCA assumes a beginning to the universe when in fact we:
- Do not know for sure that the Big Bang is the absolute starting point.
- That the universe needs a starting point.
Since it seeks to explain away a gap in our knowledge, it is indeed a "god of the gaps" argument in spite of your protests.
Quote4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a
personal Creator:
4.11 The universe was brought into being either
by a mechanically operating set of necessary and
sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
4.12 The universe could not have been brought into
being by a mechanically operating set of necessary
and sufficient conditions.
4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being
by a personal, free agent.
This is not evidence. And without "personal", the whole thing kinda falls apart. This kind of "proof" should get you laughed out of every science building in the world.
It's the classical Cosmological Argument, but re-worded to allow special pleading for gawd.
:-D Thank you! Solitary
A flaw in Craig's argument is that God's first act and the first moment of time must have been simultaneous. That is, God must have been completely changeless (no pondering, no planning, no daydreaming, etc.) before the creation. This means that, necessarily, God's first act must have been unintentional. This is totally irreconcilable with traditional notions of God, who has a plan, a design for the universe and humans.
That's a good point. He also wouldn't be able to change his mind, I guess. That's also a key part of the bible.
It's simple: Kalam only works if god or the prime mover is defined as non-existent.
Which totally beats the goal of the argument, which is to argue that god or the prime mover actually exists.
Even if one accepts that some external force caused the creation of the universe it provides no information other than some external force caused the universe. It doesn't prove that force continues to interact with our universe. Unless I am missing something, the concept has no utility at all.
Quote from: "GSOgymrat"Even if one accepts that some external force caused the creation of the universe it provides no information other than some external force caused the universe. It doesn't prove that force continues to interact with our universe. Unless I am missing something, the concept has no utility at all.
This is the ultimate death of all religious arguments. "When will we get something useful out of this knowledge?" The answer is always "never", which means their argument, even if it were miraculously correct, would still be completely useless to consider.
'Begin to exist' is an interesting phrase. Until the last century we never observed anything begin to exist, we only witnessed transformations of previously-existing states of matter and energy. The only thing we have ever observed to begin to exist are virtual particles...a product of quantum uncertainty and therefore causeless. That is, they 'pop' into existence there's no 'rule' to stop it from happening.
Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"Quote from: "Krampus"Hello,
What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?
The KCA's premise "an actual infinite cannot exist" doesn't have any (significant) supporting evidence, is not tautological, and is not self-evident. We already have inductive (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning) reasons to let go of this premise, considering that each individual sees an exceedingly small portion of the Universe. The work necessary to confirm it may not be infinite, but it is so huge that it's not practical to take the idea seriously.
Can you elaborate on that please? :)
I mean, how is an infinite past possible?
Chiming in, I don't know much about infinite pasts, but the universe seems to have an infinite future. It's as an ever-expanding cloud of photons that gets thinner and thinner, but there's no definitive physics that says it won't continue forever.
Most popular versions of God associate God with having an infinite past.
Kalam contains several fallacies that invalidate it. There isn't even any need to refute any of the premises.
Crag's version is his attempt to polish a turd.
The 2 most obvious fallacies are equivocation and composition.
Kalam equivocates with regards to the definition of 'begins to exist'.
First is uses the phrase to define things that begin to exist 'ex material'. Which is a rearrangement of existing matter and energy. Trees, tables, computers, etc begin to exist under this definition.
But KCA is referring to creation 'ex nihilo' with regards to the beginning of the universe. Which is creation out of nothing.
Same phrase, different meanings. Bye Bye modus ponens.
The other fallacy, which is one of composition. To borrow from Iron Chariots, "The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges."
Quote from: "Krampus"I mean, how is an infinite past possible?
How is a
finite past possible?
The problem is that there is a gap in our knowledge here. Knowing either answer is pretty much going to require knowing when or if the universe had a beginning as we would understand it.
As far as we know, the Big Bang was the start of the observable universe. As far as we know, there is no "cause" of the Big Bang that we can observe. We should acknowledge that the observable universe is probably not the entire universe, and that our knowledge of time may not be a complete. Beyond these acknowledgements, there is no call to speculate further on the origins of the universe until we are able to put together a more complete picture of those origins.
I think you guys are getting too complicated for the average Christian to understand.
I would just say, "Behold, a banana. Therefore it follows that Christ died on the cross for your sins. Thus, you must give all the money you can to me, to support my ministry" This is how the Kalam Cosmological Argument appears to me. We don't know the first cause, and saying you do, doesn't make it so. That simple. At least to me.
Quote from: "Plu"That's a good point. He also wouldn't be able to change his mind, I guess. That's also a key part of the bible.
He also wouldn't be able to change the fact that no universe existed. The KCA is basically the thoughts of uneducated young children (mentally, regardless of their chronological ages) who can't understand the implications of what they're saying. (Most "logical arguments" for any god are.)
BTW, the only reason the OP posted this thread is that we haven't had a thread on the KCA in ... oh ... about 2 weeks. //http://atheistforums.com/search.php?keywords=kalam&terms=all&author=&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=a&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search will show you a few older threads. This (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1512&hilit=kalam) is a good discussion (from about 3 weeks ago) on why it fails so miserably.
About the only reason to believe that there's more to the KCA than there is to a 3 year old's claim that there's a monster under his bed is that you need there to be a god that created the universe. Once you get past that need, you not only see the KCA as nonsense, you see the search for whether it's valid or not as a monumental waste of time. There's no evidence of any god (nor has there ever been any), the signs that ALL gods have been man-made are painfully evident and there's no explanatory need for any god (as long as you can accept "at this time, we don't know" as a valid answer to a question). "God did it" is just another way of saying "we don't know" - for those people who can't accept uncertainty (read: reality).
This argument automatically assumes that something can't come from nothing, and it requires special pleading by calling this God a timeless and spaceless being.
Quote from: "BabaBooey"This argument automatically assumes that something can't come from nothing, and it requires special pleading by calling this God a timeless and spaceless being.
Who came from nothing, or didn't have to "come" but the universe did - the same fallacy in either case.
I think some of you are way off. I think Craig's usage of Kant's old argument against the possibility of an infinite past are sound, and some of you aren't really responding to it fairly. For one, the argument against a past temporal infinity is not an argument from ignorance, just straightforward deductive reasoning.
In a nutshell, if you say there was an infinite series of temporal events in the past, then there is no way to have reached any particular moment because then an infinite series would have had to have been traversed. However, a future infinite isn't a problem because no matter when you stop, there will always have been a finite time from your time to the beginning, so it's never an actual infinite.
In regards to the Kalam argument, the better responses (aside from Simon Moon's) tend to be that the KCA necessitates what is called the A-theory of time, which is in direct conflict with the usual (and experimentally supported) interpretation of Special Relativity (or was it General Relativity?), while the B-theory of time works with SR. Further, addition, the A-theory of time seems to force its adherents to conclude the the observed phenomenon predicted and confirmed by SR - time dilatation and length contraction - only (in the words of William Lane Craig, a supporter of it) "appears to happen".
Another thing is that Craig and his minions tend to claim that the Big Bang theory supports creatio ex nihilo, which sounds like bullocks. You know anything about that Joe?
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"In a nutshell, if you say there was an infinite series of temporal events in the past, then there is no way to have reached any particular moment because then an infinite series would have had to have been traversed.
Actually, with an infinite amount of time, not only is every particular moment possible but that infinite series would have multiple versions of that same moment. And infinite series not only would have something happening during it, but would have everything happen during it an infinite number of times. This argument of reaching this particular point places undo value on that particular point, usually referring to the here and now when the speaker is alive. It is therefore an argument from egotism. But the speaker has been alive an infinite number of times already on an infinite timeline and been an insufferable twit in every single one of them.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"I think some of you are way off. I think Craig's usage of Kant's old argument against the possibility of an infinite past are sound, and some of you aren't really responding to it fairly. For one, the argument against a past temporal infinity is not an argument from ignorance, just straightforward deductive reasoning.
In a nutshell, if you say there was an infinite series of temporal events in the past, then there is no way to have reached any particular moment because then an infinite series would have had to have been traversed. However, a future infinite isn't a problem because no matter when you stop, there will always have been a finite time from your time to the beginning, so it's never an actual infinite.
In regards to the Kalam argument, the better responses (aside from Simon Moon's) tend to be that the KCA necessitates what is called the A-theory of time, which is in direct conflict with the usual (and experimentally supported) interpretation of Special Relativity (or was it General Relativity?), while the B-theory of time works with SR. Further, addition, the A-theory of time seems to force its adherents to conclude the the observed phenomenon predicted and confirmed by SR - time dilatation and length contraction - only (in the words of William Lane Craig, a supporter of it) "appears to happen".
Another thing is that Craig and his minions tend to claim that the Big Bang theory supports creatio ex nihilo, which sounds like bullocks. You know anything about that Joe?
In QFT, we postulate that there's an electron field, a quark field, etc., and for evry field, there is a particle, like the electron, quarks which are kinks or ripples in those fields. It would explain why an electron created in a lab today is exactly identical to an electron created 13.7 billion years ago, or created at any other intervening time. Identical particles is a must in QFT, otherwise no calculation of any results is possible. Also, quantum fluctuations are created from the vacuum of these fields. IOW, those fields are always there. Or there is no such thing as a spot somewhere in the universe that is really "nothing". So from there, we can postulate that these fields had to exist concurrently with the universe. The theists would answer that God had to create these fields when the universe was created. So nothing is really resolved from the science POV. People like Krauss and Hawking have argued that the universe CAN create itself from quantum fluctuations. From the theory we know, that is a definite possibility.
As to the question of infinity, actual or as potential as Craig has debated, that is pure speculation. We have no evidence supporting that claim.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"I think some of you are way off. I think Craig's usage of Kant's old argument against the possibility of an infinite past are sound, and some of you aren't really responding to it fairly. For one, the argument against a past temporal infinity is not an argument from ignorance, just straightforward deductive reasoning.
You can't "deduce" unknowable conditions (and the "whatever" that existed before the universe did is probably, but certainly at this time, unknowable to us.
It's not deductive reasoning, it's bald assertion, which is argument from ignorance. The only difference from the classical condition is that this isn't "we don't know, so" it's "we can't know, so".
QuoteIn a nutshell, if you say there was an infinite series of temporal events in the past, then there is no way to have reached any particular moment because then an infinite series would have had to have been traversed.
Huh? Because A, therefore 3? One has nothing to do with the other.
QuoteHowever, a future infinite isn't a problem because no matter when you stop, there will always have been a finite time from your time to the beginning, so it's never an actual infinite.
Then there is a problem with a future infinite, since there can't be one.
QuoteAnother thing is that Craig and his minions tend to claim that the Big Bang theory supports creatio ex nihilo, which sounds like bullocks. You know anything about that Joe?
If the universe always existed (we don't know that it didn't), the problem is eliminated. But the universe could have created itself ex nihilo, as Joseph explained. Ex nihilo isn't an argument for the KCA, any more than the SLoT is an argument against evolution - it just sounds "scientificy" to the illiterati.
Quote from: "Krampus"Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"Quote from: "Krampus"Hello,
What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?
The KCA's premise "an actual infinite cannot exist" doesn't have any (significant) supporting evidence, is not tautological, and is not self-evident. We already have inductive (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning) reasons to let go of this premise, considering that each individual sees an exceedingly small portion of the Universe. The work necessary to confirm it may not be infinite, but it is so huge that it's not practical to take the idea seriously.
Can you elaborate on that please? :)
I mean, how is an infinite past possible?
Would you please travel into the past and come back to tell me whether it's infinite? Do you at least understand the Big Bang, Big Crunch, multiverse, vacuum instability, and other such ideas relating to the origin/fate of the Universe?
I'm arguing that epistemological issues make the KCA insubstantial, and I would suggest that modern physics (AFAIK, I follow it but I'm no physicist) has not settled on a definite answer to the question of an infinite past.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"In a nutshell, if you say there was an infinite series of temporal events in the past, then there is no way to have reached any particular moment because then an infinite series would have had to have been traversed.
Actually, with an infinite amount of time, not only is every particular moment possible but that infinite series would have multiple versions of that same moment. And infinite series not only would have something happening during it, but would have everything happen during it an infinite number of times. This argument of reaching this particular point places undo value on that particular point, usually referring to the here and now when the speaker is alive. It is therefore an argument from egotism. But the speaker has been alive an infinite number of times already on an infinite timeline and been an insufferable twit in every single one of them.
See, now that's funny.
"An actual infinite cannot exist."
It's very strange to hear a philosopher propose such an assumption since the view of potential infinity is a rather ancient view. We could say that 1, 2, 3, ..., N are all natural numbers where the next number is given by N+1. And we could also propose that we'd never reach actual infinity no longer how long we tried. But if we go too far down that road of thinking, we would lose our ability to declare the set of N or natural numbers, and work with the set of natural numbers as an object. As a set (actual infinity), we can iterate over the collection of elements using a rule. We can also compare those sets. For example, we know the set of real numbers is larger than the set of integers thanks to Cantors diagonal argument.
And now that gets us to the next one:
"An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite."
Seems to me like some philosophers need to play catch up ball with mathematicians. But I'll bite anyway....
Suppose then that time is finite, and also suppose it was created. Now we look at "Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence."
Suppose the first moment has arrived.
Where is the past for the first moment?
Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"I would suggest that modern physics (AFAIK, I follow it but I'm no physicist) has not settled on a definite answer to the question of an infinite past.
Actually it has - a definite, but not a permanent, one. It's an answer that science considers perfectly acceptable, but theists don't, unless they reword it as "God did it". Science's phrases it "we don't know".
Quote from: "Krampus"Hello,
What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?
Craig;s argument uses one basic claim, that an infinite chain of cause and effect cannot exist. so God must have started everything.
From here he tries to prove that by stating that there cannot be an actual infinity. We can imagine a library with infinite books, but since on cannot count to infinity, a real infinite series of anything is logically impossible.
Not true. God created heaven and hell where souls will spend infinite time in one or the other experiencing an infinite series of either painful experiences or experiences of ecstasy. Infinite things, infinite experiences. So his basic kingpin to his argument, there cannot be a set of infinite things is false.
Before omniscient God created hell, which being omniscient he'd know he'd do, he would think 'In a year, I will create hell, "In a hundred years I will create hell", "In a billion years I will create hell" and so on, an infinite series of thoughts in time, a thought is a thing and he'd have infinite series here of real things.
His own belief in a God that creates all and is omniscient guts his logical argument of why there cannot be a infinite series of cause and effects. This effectively defeats his "proof".
Cheerful Charlie
Quote from: "Cheerful Charlie"Quote from: "Krampus"Hello,
What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?
Craig;s argument uses one basic claim, that an infinite chain of cause and effect cannot exist. so God must have started everything.
From here he tries to prove that by stating that there cannot be an actual infinity. We can imagine a library with infinite books, but since on cannot count to infinity, a real infinite series of anything is logically impossible.
Not true. God created
Etc., is much more than is required. The series of integers is an infinite series. It's that trivial to disprove "an infinite series is impossible".
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Cheerful Charlie"Quote from: "Krampus"Hello,
What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?
Craig;s argument uses one basic claim, that an infinite chain of cause and effect cannot exist. so God must have started everything.
From here he tries to prove that by stating that there cannot be an actual infinity. We can imagine a library with infinite books, but since on cannot count to infinity, a real infinite series of anything is logically impossible.
Not true. God created
Etc., is much more than is required. The series of integers is an infinite series. It's that trivial to disprove "an infinite series is impossible".
Craig overcomes this but distinguishing "potential" and "actual" infinities: a mathematical infinite series is a "potential" infinite, that's okay according to his proposal, but an infinite chain of cause and effect cannot be an "actual" infinite. From a scientific POV, his proposal is not falsifiable. Nothing is really resolved, though Craig believes it is.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Colanth"God created
Etc., is much more than is required. The series of integers is an infinite series. It's that trivial to disprove "an infinite series is impossible".
Craig overcomes this but distinguishing "potential" and "actual" infinities: a mathematical infinite series is a "potential" infinite, that's okay according to his proposal, but an infinite chain of cause and effect cannot be an "actual" infinite. From a scientific POV, his proposal is not falsifiable. Nothing is really resolved, though Craig believes it is.[/quote]His proposal has about as much merit as "God did it" or "it was a miracle". When theist apologists go down this path ("we don't know" worded differently), they actually, IMO, tip over their king.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Cheerful Charlie"Quote from: "Krampus"Hello,
What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?
Craig;s argument uses one basic claim, that an infinite chain of cause and effect cannot exist. so God must have started everything.
From here he tries to prove that by stating that there cannot be an actual infinity. We can imagine a library with infinite books, but since on cannot count to infinity, a real infinite series of anything is logically impossible.
Not true. God created
Etc., is much more than is required. The series of integers is an infinite series. It's that trivial to disprove "an infinite series is impossible".
Craig resorts to some fancy phrases, potential vs actual infinities, but at bottom, his claim is that actual infinities are impossible, that you cannot count to infinity, that you cannot add numbers to arrive at infinity. That thus one cannot have actual infinite collection of actual things. Thus any real collection of things in an infinite series of cause and effect is impossible, logically.
But as I demonstrate, this simply is not so.
Another example debunking all of this is the multi-universe, which if physicists are right is infinite in time and extent. People like Alan Guth, Andrei Linde and others astrophycists know their maths, and if Craig was right about his claims about actual vs potential infinities would have ruled out the Multi-Universe on mathematical grounds. I trust the mathematical knowledge of scientists like these far more that the abilities of Craig.
For WCL's slippery reply to this dilemma, read here
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/omniscie ... l-infinity (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/omniscience-and-actual-infinity)
Cheerful Charliee
Quote from: "Colanth"You can't "deduce" unknowable conditions (and the "whatever" that existed before the universe did is probably, but certainly at this time, unknowable to us.
An argument against the possibility of an actual infinite past has nothing to do with unknowable conditions, but with whether or not a particular concept is actually coherent.
QuoteIt's not deductive reasoning, it's bald assertion, which is argument from ignorance. The only difference from the classical condition is that this isn't "we don't know, so" it's "we can't know, so".
I think Craig and the like can be pretty shameless, but here he defends it well I think, and doesn't just assert it but (sometimes) gives compelling arguments for it.
QuoteHuh? Because A, therefore 3? One has nothing to do with the other.
That has nothing to do with what I said...
QuoteThen there is a problem with a future infinite, since there can't be one.
Read that again. What Craig and co. are talking about is simple. There's no problem with time unendingly progressing from an 'absolute' beginning because there is no point in time after the beginning from which an infinite amount of time will have passed.
QuoteIf the universe always existed (we don't know that it didn't), the problem is eliminated. But the universe could have created itself ex nihilo, as Joseph explained. Ex nihilo isn't an argument for the KCA, any more than the SLoT is an argument against evolution - it just sounds "scientificy" to the illiterati.
As far as I can tell (and Joe can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am), but what Joe was talking about wasn't
creation ex nihilo, but creation from something that clearly could be said to already have existed (fields).
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Actually, with an infinite amount of time, not only is every particular moment possible but that infinite series would have multiple versions of that same moment.
If there was an infinite series of events, you're saying that before EVERY moment and EVERY event there was an infinite number of time and actions. If you can explain how an infinite number of time and events can happen, I'm all ears.
QuoteAnd infinite series not only would have something happening during it, but would have everything happen during it an infinite number of times. This argument of reaching this particular point places undo value on that particular point, usually referring to the here and now when the speaker is alive. It is therefore an argument from egotism. But the speaker has been alive an infinite number of times already on an infinite timeline and been an insufferable twit in every single one of them.
You're really just assuming it is possible and then questioning why that assumption is being questioned. Also, that's not egotism, all it is, is questioning whether talking about prior temporal infinities is sensible.
If one considers our universe to be part of the Universe which is including an infinite amount of universes, they could all be along with ours an eternal Universe with no beginning or end that just keeps changing and growing. :shock: Solitary
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "Colanth"Y
QuoteIf the universe always existed (we don't know that it didn't), the problem is eliminated. But the universe could have created itself ex nihilo, as Joseph explained. Ex nihilo isn't an argument for the KCA, any more than the SLoT is an argument against evolution - it just sounds "scientificy" to the illiterati.
As far as I can tell (and Joe can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am), but what Joe was talking about wasn't creation ex nihilo, but creation from something that clearly could be said to already have existed (fields).
It all hinges on what is meant by "nothing". In QFT, we define the vacuum as the absence of all known fields. We also define a creation operator, a[sup:3nzjh5yr]+[/sup:3nzjh5yr][sub:3nzjh5yr]k[/sub:3nzjh5yr] and annihilation operator a[sup:3nzjh5yr]?[/sup:3nzjh5yr][sub:3nzjh5yr]k[/sub:3nzjh5yr]. So the vacuum, symbolized by l0>is defined as,
a[sup:3nzjh5yr]?[/sup:3nzjh5yr][sub:3nzjh5yr]k[/sub:3nzjh5yr] l0> = 0
IOW, destroying the vacuum with an annihilation operator gives zero. A lot of calculations are done using this definition. And many results of QFT which have been confirmed by experiments dependent on this principle.
You can also show that if you have a region of space with varying energy (energy is a function of time), particle production can occur in the vacuum itself, even though we started out that it contained "nothing" - Hawking radiation is one of those calculations. So what Krauss has proposed - the universe springing out of quantum fluctuations - is a possibility. However, the fields are assumed to exist and permeating all space. So is this creation ex nihilo? That is debatable.
Quote from: "Cheerful Charlie"Craig resorts to some fancy phrases, potential vs actual infinities, but at bottom, his claim is that actual infinities are impossible, that you cannot count to infinity
He's correct, since infinity isn't a number. (He's conflating 'infinite' and 'infinity' [as a number].)
Quotethat you cannot add numbers to arrive at infinity.
See above.
QuoteThat thus one cannot have actual infinite collection of actual things.
One can, since infinite isn't the same as infinity. (There's no 'this', since there's no prior argument about 'infinite'.)
QuoteThus any real collection of things in an infinite series of cause and effect is impossible, logically.
So the series of positive integers ISN'T infinitely long? We have to redo math from the beginning. Or Craig's wrong. I know where MY money is.
QuoteAnother example debunking all of this is the multi-universe, which if physicists are right is infinite in time and extent.
Well ...
Remember, the universe is finite. The multiverse, if it exists, could also be finite. Since the multiverse is only conjecture at this point, assigning definite properties to it is a bit premature.
QuoteI trust the mathematical knowledge of scientists like these far more that the abilities of Craig.
I trust scientists, who say things like "could be" or "probably", more than I trust people like Craig, who say "is".
QuoteFor WCL's slippery reply to this dilemma, read here
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/omniscie ... l-infinity (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/omniscience-and-actual-infinity)
What a load of male-bovine-digested grass.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"However, the fields are assumed to exist and permeating all space. So is this creation ex nihilo? That is debatable.
As is God creating the universe out of "nothing" when God existed. (Just another Christian disproof of itself.)
My objections are simple: Whilst our local universe had a beginning at the Big Bang there could be a global universe. There could be an infinite amount of universes in the multiverse, there could be an infinite energy source, the universe could have come from nothing or another naturalistic explanation could be possible. Also see this site for why all theistic arguments fail: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8854
Quote from: 12Monkeys on March 25, 2014, 01:06:10 PM
My objections are simple: Whilst our local universe had a beginning at the Big Bang there could be a global universe. There could be an infinite amount of universes in the multiverse, there could be an infinite energy source, the universe could have come from nothing or another naturalistic explanation could be possible. Also see this site for why all theistic arguments fail: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8854
Yes, that would be a counter-argument to the second proposition, "2.The universe has a beginning of its existence". There is also a counter-argument to the first proposition, "1.Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence", and that is, "cause and effect" applies within the universe. We have no way of knowing if "cause and effect" applies outside the universe. So the whole KC argument is based on two questionable propositions, hence one cannot make any logical deduction.
Quote from: Krampus on July 30, 2013, 12:00:51 AM
Hello,
What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?
I see several problems with it. If you want to get
really technical, the first premise should be "everything
that we've observed thus far that exists has a cause". No one has observed the beginning of the universe, so it's impossible to definitively say that there was a cause. That being said, it does seem like a
reasonable assumption. Still, I feel a valid answer to "what was the cause?" if "
I don't know".
Now, I always hear this argument in context with proving that
God was that cause, so based on that, here are my problems with that assertion:
The theist basically plugs God in as the root cause to win the argument. At that point, I'll ask "what was God's cause?". No one wants to argue infinite regression, so instead of saying something like "God's dad" they'll say "God doesn't
have a cause". Of course, this is special pleading. So, they'll have to give a reason. It's typically something like God being "timeless" or "eternal". That raises two important questions:
1) How do you know God is timeless or eternal?
2) How do you know the universe isn't?
At the end of the day, they have to make three assumptions to be able to prove that God is the cause:
1) God exists, despite being nonfalsifiable.
2) God has the power to create universes.
3) God is timeless or eternal.
I can posit any nonfalsifiable thing I want that satisfies those three criteria and make the same type of baseless claim. I mean, can you
prove the universe wasn't created by tiny, undetectable, eternal, universe-creating particles called fleems? It doesn't mean we have to take the claim seriously!
Quote from: Colanth on August 07, 2013, 05:00:53 PM
He's correct, since infinity isn't a number. (He's conflating 'infinite' and 'infinity' [as a number].)
See above.
One can, since infinite isn't the same as infinity. (There's no 'this', since there's no prior argument about 'infinite'.)
So the series of positive integers ISN'T infinitely long? We have to redo math from the beginning. Or Craig's wrong. I know where MY money is.
Well ...
Remember, the universe is finite. The multiverse, if it exists, could also be finite. Since the multiverse is only conjecture at this point, assigning definite properties to it is a bit premature.
I trust scientists, who say things like "could be" or "probably", more than I trust people like Craig, who say "is".
What a load of male-bovine-digested grass.
Exactly, infinity is NOT a number. And if for a fact the true state of reality IS a real and actual infinite chain of cause and effect, then it is infinite and addition or subtraction is irrelevant, its the wrong set of mathematical tools for dealing with that situation. IE a strawman.
Again, we are told God created heaven and hell where souls suffer or enjoy themselves for eternity, an infinite series of mental states. Craig's straw man argument then precludes this dogmatic biblical claim from being true. One cannot get to infinity by counting (adding) the states of mental agony or joy to eternity.
Obviously, something here is wrong with this argument.
What Lane tries to do here is rule out an infinite chain of cause and effect to make God necessary but it fails as a logical proof. Potential or actual infinities, it matters not
Quote from: Krampus on July 30, 2013, 12:00:51 AM
Hello,
What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?
Virtual particles begin to exist without a cause. Q.E.D.
Quote from: Plu on July 30, 2013, 09:39:48 AM
"4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a
personal Creator:
4.11 The universe was brought into being either
by a mechanically operating set of necessary and
sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
4.12 The universe could not have been brought into
being by a mechanically operating set of necessary
and sufficient conditions.
4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being
by a personal, free agent."
This is not evidence. And without "personal", the whole thing kinda falls apart. This kind of "proof" should get you laughed out of every science building in the world.
I second that. With Craig it's always "garbage in, garbage out". He FIRST assumes his "personal agent", then creates his pseudo-logical arguments with NO evidence whatsoever, and in the end arrives triumphant at his so-called conclusion. His "iron-clad logic" is reeeaaaaallllyyy irritating, makes me wanna puke everytime I read it or hear him speak. What a fuckin douche.
Quote from: Krampus on July 30, 2013, 12:00:51 AM
Hello,
What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?
(http://www.hivegamer.com/statussystem/images/1396039548_dog_poo_close-up.jpg)
Quote from: the_antithesis on April 19, 2014, 09:44:11 AM
(http://www.hivegamer.com/statussystem/images/1396039548_dog_poo_close-up.jpg)
If You would excuse me using a pun here: HOOOLLLLYYYYYY SHIT!!!!!
And here I was just about to eat my brownie... guess not!
Quote from: pioteir on April 19, 2014, 04:03:31 PM
If You would excuse me using a pun here: HOOOLLLLYYYYYY SHIT!!!!!
And here I was just about to eat my brownie... guess not!
Should have been then when I was on Google Images.