Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Teaspoon Shallow]

My reason behind this post is not to push William Lane Craig's pet argument but to see the many ways this can be dissected and shown to be flawed.

This is the shortest video I could find:

[youtube:2ed3lz6o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBxzk3eJ8Aw[/youtube:2ed3lz6o]

Argument reads:

Premise 1: What ever begins to exist has a cause (things don't come into existance from nothing)
Premise 2: The universe had a began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause to exist

This is important, Billy goes on to say:

You then do a conceptual analysis what it is to be the cause of space, time, matter and energy.  You need a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, space-less, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe, which is the core concept of God.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

I am reserving this post to provide a quick, pin-point rebuttals for any one seeking it.

[Plu]

Alright. Breakdown!

a) we have never observed "nothing", so we have no knowledge of it, so we can't state something like "something cannot come from nothing", because that would require we know something about the properties of nothing.

This completely breaks the argument apart, really.

b) where the hell does the 'personal' part suddenly comes from? He just snuck that in when he thought we weren't watching. Without the personal, it's not the concept of god anymore, but there's nothing to indicate that it had to be personal at all.

This one just shows his dishonest methods, I guess. Or he has a longer explanation to show how he goes from flawed premise A to B, which is obviously meaningless.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Premise 1: What begins to exist has a cause.

What Billy is saying here is work has to be done to bring something into being.
It is a cause and effect relationship:

cause-and-ef·fect  [kawz-uhnd-i-fekt, -uhn-]  
adjective
noting a relationship between actions or events such that one or more are the result of the other or others.

He argues it was his God that caused the universe to begin.

I am a builder, I build homes. Do I cause a home to come into existence? Well, not really.  I take pre-existing material like timber, minerals, clays etc and assemble them into a home.  But the material I used are pre-existing.  I did not think them into existence.

What Billy is saying is god caused nothing to become the universe.  Nothing at all.  He did not use some left over material from making heaven and think, with these left overs, I can make something nice for the misses. [-X

What can be provided as evidence to support this idea? What has ever been witnessed being bought into existence from absolutely nothing.  I would argue virtual partials don't meet this criteria.

If it can not be demonstrated then this could be flawed logic and garbage is being inserted into the argument.

What do you think?

This is by far not my only objection but I will post more later.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Alright. Breakdown!

a) we have never observed "nothing", so we have no knowledge of it, so we can't state something like "something cannot come from nothing", because that would require we know something about the properties of nothing.

This completely breaks the argument apart, really.

b) where the hell does the 'personal' part suddenly comes from? He just snuck that in when he thought we weren't watching. Without the personal, it's not the concept of god anymore, but there's nothing to indicate that it had to be personal at all.

This one just shows his dishonest methods, I guess. Or he has a longer explanation to show how he goes from flawed premise A to B, which is obviously meaningless.

Hi Plu

I have seen a 2 hour presentation of his argument and it would be more efficient to view his objects to objections videos or read from his web site.  I will post some of his objection to rebuttals later.  Some are valid, others are just bat s#!t crazy (IMO).

He is a great debater, but does his arguments hold water when really tested?  I am looking forward to testing the hell out of them.

I will play devils advocate for some of this discussion using his objections so we can work out where he may be right and where he is fundamentally wrong.

[Plu]

Can he rebut the part A) I posted? Because I don't really see how he could, and it really just brings the argument down. We don't have any knowledge on "nothing" so we can't make claims like "something cannot come from nothing".

[Teaspoon Shallow]

That is an objection he has addressed but I can not remember how sound his rebuttal was.

I don't think he is a fool (like some do). Some of his arguments are valid to a point and that I think is worth talking about.  

Understanding these type of arguments form apologists can better educate those who have never tried to talk reason with someone so well armed with sophistry.

[Bibliofagus]

Kalam is just an insanely convoluted way of saying: "God is nothing".

[the_antithesis]

I don't think he is a fool (like some do).

No, he's a charlatan. There's a difference.

Some of his arguments are valid to a point and that I think is worth talking about.

The devil mixes truth with lies.

[Jmpty]

As human beings, we are predisposed to think of everything in terms of our own existence. Birth, life, death, etc., as well as imposing  a concept of time based upon our own lifespan, as in, what is a hundred years, as opposed to what is a million, or a billion years. Theese large numbers are basically unfathomable to the average person, hence, some of the issue people have with evolution. The concept of a universe that needs no outside influence to "begin" is not compatible with the  human thought process, because, in human "logic" it doesn't make sense. Once one can put aside the perspective that comes automatically with being a human being, it can open the door to understanding how the universe arrived at its current state of being.

Oh, yeah, this guy has the unfortunate position of being a flim flam man who believes his own scam.

[ThoughtOfTheDay]

My reason behind this post is not to push William Lane Craig's pet argument but to see the many ways this can be dissected and shown to be flawed.

This is the shortest video I could find:

Writer posted a YouTube video

Argument reads:

Premise 1: What ever begins to exist has a cause (things don't come into existance from nothing)
Premise 2: The universe had a began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause to exist

This is important, Billy goes on to say:

You then do a conceptual analysis what it is to be the cause of space, time, matter and energy.  You need a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, space-less, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe, which is the core concept of God.

Umm ... how is this argument different that propounded by Thomas Aquinas in his Quinque Viae (Five Ways)?

[Farroc]

His mistake is in assuming that cause and effect always applies to matter. It doesn't. It always applies to time. If matter were to exist without time cause and effect would no longer apply, and a "First Cause" wouldn't be necessary.

[aitm]

All this work to prove the existence of a god that could create a 40 billion light year universe yet be thwarthed by ignorant humans who simply had chariots with iron wheels......yeah... of course it makes sense.

[BarkAtTheMoon]

Argument reads:

Premise 1: What ever begins to exist has a cause (things don't come into existance from nothing)
Premise 2: The universe had a began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause to exist

This is important, Billy goes on to say:

You then do a conceptual analysis what it is to be the cause of space, time, matter and energy.  You need a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, space-less, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe, which is the core concept of God.

By its own arguments, it means either God doesn't exist or God had to have a cause, making the whole thing counterproductive in "proving" God. Granting this God a special exemption from the argument's own rules is bogus. If God didn't need a cause, then neither does the universe. If the universe does have a cause, it's not necessary that it's a conscious being rather than one of the possibilities from theoretical physics. That whole last paragraph is baseless speculation stated as fact based solely on his religious beliefs.

[Gerard]

Argument reads:

Premise 1: What ever begins to exist has a cause (things don't come into existance from nothing)
Premise 2: The universe had a began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause to exist

This is important, Billy goes on to say:

You then do a conceptual analysis what it is to be the cause of space, time, matter and energy.  You need a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, space-less, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe, which is the core concept of God.

By its own arguments, it means either God doesn't exist or God had to have a cause, making the whole thing counterproductive in "proving" God. Granting this God a special exemption from the arguments own rules is bogus. If God didn't need a cause, then neither does the universe. If the universe does have a cause, it's not necessary that it's a conscious being rather than one of the possibilities from theoretical physics. That whole last paragraph is baseless speculation stated as fact based solely on his religious beliefs.

If the universe (for whatever reason) needs a cause, the so does God. If the universe is defined as everything that exists, then, if God exists, it includes God.

Gerard