Kalam Cosmological Argument

[b488]

Hey people.

I have seen support and attack for this on several related threads. Perhaps its been hashed over to death already, but I havent seen it. :teeth:
So, if you could kindly bring your discussion here about what you think about it and the reasons why you came to your conclusion, I would appreciate it greatly.
I believe there is also a couple of variants to the argument as well, perhaps one should propose which one to discuss. (Say, the formal argument given by Craig. (a name I have seen mentioned here))

Ciao! :thumb:

[b488]

I suppose it goes a little something like this:

(i) that whatever begins to exist has a cause
(ii) the universe began to exist
(iii) therefore the universe has a cause.

Apparently, some other accounts seek to establish another premise;namely, the cause for the beginning of the universe was 'personal'


The set-up for this thread is wide open on purpose, because my post/day figure is respectable as a batting average, but not so good to support a rapid-fire, back-and-forth style discussion.

I am interested in everyones thought on this. Thank you!

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

i believe Craig's runs, roughly, thus:

a series of dilemmas:
1. either the universe had a beginning or it had no beginning.
2.if the universe had a beginning, it was either caused or not caused.
3.if the universe had a beginning that was caused, either the cause was personal or it was not personal.

in defense of the arg, we have these premises:
1.the universe had a beginning.
2.the universe's beginning was caused.
3.the cause of the universe's beginning was personal.

see Craig's apologetics: an introduction & jp moreland's scaling the secular city for fairly detailed defenses along the lines of set theory, the dubieties of actual infinities, big bang cosmology, etc, etc.

i'm typing with three fingers due to a dislocated shoulder; anyone else who has the inclination can feel free to continue...

[Satori]

Wow, are you guys still talking about this mindless rhetoric? I mean, I'm all for fun-filled metaphysical theorizing, but this is just pathetic. Imagine, the inherent lameness of attempting to validate such weak reasons as to why the universe exists. But I understand why many of you discuss such nonsense, you have to cling to something in order to attempt to substantiate your various egocentric delusions. Tsk, tsk. I hope someday you come to the stark realization that you

1. Just don't know, and
2. Perhaps will not ever know

Why is that so hard to grasp? Oh yes, the various delusions you are eternally obligated to convince yourself of is weighing your minds and preventing you from being absolutely honest with yourself and admitting the obvious to yourself - you JUST DON"T KNOW, so deal with it and have the wisdom and intelligence to acknowledge that and maintain an open mind.

In reason,

Satori

PS: Opps, sorry, I realize that adhering to one of the world's many silly mythologies and having an open mind are mutually exclusive, so scratch that "maintain an open mind" part, for most of you who frequent this site, that is quite impossible, and it is this very affliction which leads you to hold various delusional states of time and leads you down intellectual dead ends like the topic of this thread. How sad, but hey, whatever cranks your shaft is just dandy with me, hhehehehe. Enjoy! Just try to remember that there's no benefit whatsoever in deluding yourself with whacky theories about the (as of yet) unknowable.

[Satori]

I'll try to penetrate a few skulls and hopefully open a few eyes about why this rhetoric is for fools:


i believe Craig's runs, roughly, thus:

a series of dilemmas:
1. either the universe had a beginning or it had no beginning.
2.if the universe had a beginning, it was either caused or not caused.
3.if the universe had a beginning that was caused, either the cause was personal or it was not personal.

1. this is a foolish assumption based on inherently limited human conceptualizations and ideas in a macro 4 dimensional spacetime. The "beginning" of the universe, or lack thereof, doesn't necessarily conform to our little perspectives. The human mind loves to divide things into mutually exclusive things, it's either black or white, but it can't be both at the same time, and it can't be neither.. OR CAN IT? It's time to open your eyes and think outside of that box my friends, I and urge you to do just that.

2. Same deal with #2. A human thinks that the very frabric of the origins of reality itself fits neatly within his incredibly limited and discriminatory conceptualizations based entirely in macro 4 dimensional spacetime. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

3. This one is the most ridiculous of the 3 queries. Again, the blanket "black or white" option is give, "it's either A, or it's B, it can't be both, and it can't be neither." That is the brand of thinking of those with small minds which cannot recognize their own limitations. I find the notion that the origin of the supposed "cause" (hahaah) of the universe being personal simply too narrow-minded to take seriously, since it so weakly attempts to put human beings as somehow directly connected to the event of the formation of the universe, and such speculation is quite frankly ridiculous because it is just so incredibly egocentric. It's a symptom of the incredible heights of human self-importance/arrogance, and that's not funny, it's just sad and short-sighted (given the fact that we have no solid reasons to presume that humanity is the focal point of this little planet we call earth, much LESS the entire universe itself). But I realize that being small minded and having such a grand sense of self-importance go hand in hand, so I am not the least bit suprised, though I am saddened by such feeble attempts at metaphysical understanding because I feel they lead only to further confusion and delusion and away from *reality*.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any more sad/ridiculous...

in defense of the arg, we have these premises:
1.the universe had a beginning.
2.the universe's beginning was caused.
3.the cause of the universe's beginning was personal.

1. It did? Wow, I wonder who traveled back in time to discern this tidbit.
2. It was? It's a shame that it's completely impossible to show this in any regard.
3. It was personal? Oh boy, I can only grieve for the kind of mind that would jump to such an egocentric and self-absorbed conclusion, because anything less would simply be inhumane of me.

Satori

PS: I'm not dumping on you personally, just the innaneness of the ideas contained in your post, so please don't think I'm out to get you, I'm only interested in waking sleeping minds from the plauge of narrow-minded, short-sighted, and self-important superstition which has confused humanity since the dawn of civilization.

[geebob]

Satori,

We recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated. If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter. Even with such substantiation, such characterizations shall not be used to such a degree that they are unnecessarily disruptive and cease to contribute to or assist in meaningful dialog.


Your first post was content free and the condescending tone serves only to inflame. Such comments are not welcome here.

[b488]

Pereynol: Thank you for the response, and i am looking into both Craig's and Moreland's stuff. (I'm thankful I have a friend who is willing to lend his books out to shady characters like myself)

Satori: I'm taken aback by your post. Pereynol simply stated the arguments to me and then offered ideas on where I could find more information about the topic. If you had cared to read my initial post, I am seeking opinions for the argument for and against and why one came to that conclusion, not on the mental or emotional condition of people who hold the opposite view.

As for the other content of your response, i don't know what to make of it. If i had to reduce it into a few statements it would look something like this:


1. Humans are limited to 'four dimensions', but they ought somehow not to be constrained by them in their thinking about 'reality'

2. That the law of non-contradiction should not be one of those limitations.

3. Only the small minded and arrogant (which you, I hope humorously, offered that they were virtually synonymous) would ever be as absurd as to postulate a personal cause to the universe.

So I have a few questions for you:

If there is a false dilemma in the argument, can you show how this is so? Can you give any reasons why we should not accept the law of non-contradiction? (I really cant see how something can both have a beginning and not have one.) In what way is this argument's veridicality tied to the egocentric behavior of the people postulating it? This to me seems like the genetic fallacy.

It may turn out that it is a feeble attempt to understand the metaphysical, but its at least an attempt. Are you saying that it is impossible for humans to attempt this? Surely not, otherwise you would have no grounds to disparage other's attempts at doing so.

[wwatts]

Yesterday @ 06:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95371#post95371)
b488:

I suppose it goes a little something like this:

(i) that whatever begins to exist has a cause
(ii) the universe began to exist
(iii) therefore the universe has a cause.

Apparently, some other accounts seek to establish another premise;namely, the cause for the beginning of the universe was 'personal'


The set-up for this thread is wide open on purpose, because my post/day figure is respectable as a batting average, but not so good to support a rapid-fire, back-and-forth style discussion.

I am interested in everyones thought on this. Thank you!

I have used the kalam cosmological argument before in a debate. There are a couple things you need to establish before this or any argument.

A criterion for truth

You need to establish what the other person's epistemology is. What I mean by that is you need to establish what their a-priori 'criterion' for truth is.

The law of non-contradiction: "A cannot be A and Non-A at the same time and in the same sense"

If they don't hold the law of non-contradiction then you need to discuss that law, not the kalam cosmological argument.

Empircal Evidence

You need to establish their criterion for truth concerning everyday life. A simple question like, 'how do you know you are looking at a computer right now?". As soon as you establish the principle that our cognative faculties are genererally reliable, you are ready to move on to the real argument. I say this because the Kalam cosmological argument is based off of both formal logic and empirical evidence.

In short, once you have their criterion down then you can find out if you can use the argument or not.

I think the best defenses of the argument are found on Craigs web page in his articles found here:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html

Also, a must read is his book on time found here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1581342411/qid=1052923819/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-3734784-3815860?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

This is because you will need to understand how 'something' can create time. It doesn't mean that something had to be 'before' time, which is can be construed as a logical contradiction, given the right premises. Basically craig allows for a couple of viewpoints concerning this. One of them being that a cause can occur simultaneosly with an effect. Another being that God could be in a 'super-time' or metaphysical time in which our time is embedded in. I opt for the first, since it is less complicated.

[geebob]

I lacked time to devote to satori's second post. AS there was an attempt at addressing some of the issues, some of the things will remain. However, much still crosses the line in terms of being pointlessly dissruptive and without substantiation and will be edited.

[greyphilosophy]

I just have to say before I begin that I highly enjoy Satori's posts. It's kinda refreshing to hear someone make blanket statements without anything to support them. I sincerely hope you are makeing them for humor value. The only way your statements about the limitations of human conceptualizations could have value is if you had managed to transcend, which would give you the authority to make such statements. Unfortunatly if you had transcended you would realize such statements would be ineffective in helping others reach transcendence. As far as your claim which seems to state that any dichotemy is by nature false goes, it's wrong.

Now back to the Kalam cosmological argument:
I have a website which I've been to several times which summarizes the Kalam cosmological argument, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

for 1 & 2 of the defences, a young philosopher, Luke Van Horn did a presentation I went to about a year ago on the KCA. He basically stated:

1. Anything that comes to exist has a cause.
2. Actual infinites do not exist
3. Time itself isn't infinite
4. Time had a beginning (came to exist)
5. Time had a cause

The argument for 3 comes from sufficient cause vs. personal cause. If the sufficient cause of the creation event always existed then the universe would always have existed. The universe has not always existed, therefor the cause must have been personal.

~Grey