NationStates Jolt Archive

http://operation513.blogspot.com/2008/07/kalam-cosmological-argument-for-gods.html

(edit:)This website been doing the rounds in a few forums i hang in, and been getting some nazzy answer from both side of the fence, and i not seen a atheist vs theist argument on here for a week or so, and i miss as they amuse me. So I thought I put this on here and see what you guys think of it.

Oh god another one why can I see this thread going to at least 300 posts without anything meaningful in the OP. These threads are as tiresome as threads about Palin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument#Objection_from_contradictio_in_adjecto

Well if anyone is interested in debating this, they can do so by commenting in said blog - so this is essentially pointless.

Secondly the kalaam argument is rubbish. To take the three arguments concerned in that blog: in the first quantum randomness disagrees with premise 1, and premise 2 is just fanciful assumption; in the second one premise 1 is just randomly pulled out of someone's arse, and premise 2 is the same fanciful assumption that infinite regression cannot happen, without it being either self evident, or proven in any way; in the third premise 2 is just random shit (if you'll pardon my French) - because it obviously always follows that if something has one limit, it must therefore have a second, and thus be finite [/sarcasm] (i.e. if a line has one limit, which in the case of the line of time would be the present, it does not in any way follow that it has any such limit anywhere in the other direction, i.e. the past... a school kid knows this much in grade 2 geometry).

Cantor dealt with the problem of actual infinities with the diagonal argument. Infinity can be perceived in physical representation by analysing it in infinitessimal intervals. The set of real numbers between 0 and 1, for instance, is uncountably infinite, and yet the numbers can themselves be used to represent distance without conflict.

Unless like Pythagoras you refuse to acknowledge the square root of two, there's no problem in creating an actual infinite.

www.whyareyoupublicizingsomeonesblog.com

http://operation513.blogspot.com/2008/07/kalam-cosmological-argument-for-gods.html

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Assertion number one is iffy. Assertion number two is likely, but still based on scientific theory which is not absolute certainty. However, this also assumes a fourth assertion that 'Cause always precedes effect'. I don't subscribe to that assumed assertion.


1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist in reality.
2. A beginningless series of events is an actually infinite number of things.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events cannot exist in reality.

Assertion number one is iffy. Assertion number two is extremely weak.


1. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2. A collection formed by successive addition can never reach an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.

The first assertion can be argued with theoretical physics and is therefore unproven. It also assumes that cause always precedes effect. In addition, it assumes that a temporal series of events can ONLY be formed by successive addition. That can be debated also.

In short, this whole foundation for this argument is built upon quicksand. *nod*

That being said, I like quicksand. :)

Goticbob, your first post is cut-and-paste spam. I'm not closing the thread because there's apparently a discussion developing, but don't begin a thread that way again. Include a comment or query so that other posters have something to debate and you have something to defend/promote/discuss.

Goticbob, your first post is cut-and-paste spam. I'm not closing the thread because there's apparently a discussion developing, but don't begin a thread that way again. Include a comment or query so that other posters have something to debate and you have something to defend/promote/discuss.

That's asking a lot. ;)

so what if the universe has to have a cause? how is that proof of GOD?

if you decide it IS a proof of "god" it tells us nothing about that god.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause

Assuming there's a beginning in terms we can understand.

The universe had a beginning

This universe did, possibly just a link in a chain.

Therefore, the universe has a cause

An explosion, what are you ascribing it to?


The first premise seems obviously true as it is deeply rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing.

Intuition not proven.

To say that something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing I think is worse than magic. For at least in magic, you have the magician and maybe a hat, but here you have nothing being caused by nothing, yet coming into existence. It seems absurd.

First, why, of all the infinite possibilities, not only a God, but a God with specific instructions as to how you live your life, all differing among different sects?

However, some people try to object by saying, "Ah, so that means God would have to have a cause as well".

No, some of us would ask why you're presuming a God in the first place.

Remember, the first premise is: "Everything that has a beginning has a cause".

As defined by you...

God never had a beginning, thus needs no cause. I'll explain later in this article why God cannot have a beginning.

Well, anyway...

this thread is a good lesson on why its stupid to just put up a url.

oddly enough the guy who wrote the blog isnt responding to our excellent points.

More interesting religious argument - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt1Yo610lG0

Goticbob, your first post is cut-and-paste spam. I'm not closing the thread because there's apparently a discussion developing, but don't begin a thread that way again. Include a comment or query so that other posters have something to debate and you have something to defend/promote/discuss.

sorry me being lazy, have reedited to bring into line

this thread is a good lesson on why its stupid to just put up a url.

oddly enough the guy who wrote the blog isnt responding to our excellent points.

Who said i wrote it?

More interesting religious argument - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt1Yo610lG0
I clicked the link, read the title, and immediately closed the tab. Maybe it's just my inability to tolerate applied theology, but the construction "Satan's Stargate" strikes me as possibly the most ridiculous 2-word combination yet formulated.

Was there anything of any real value in that, or more of the "omg science is teh ebils"?

I clicked the link, read the title, and immediately closed the tab. Maybe it's just my inability to tolerate applied theology, but the construction "Satan's Stargate" strikes me as possibly the most ridiculous 2-word combination yet formulated.

Was there anything of any real value in that, or more of the "omg science is teh ebils"?

Totally worth watching :D He's got no idea what he's talking about but he's funny as hell :D

EDIT: Comments aren't bad either.

Who said i wrote it?

You're missing ashmoria's point.The guy who wrote the blog isn't responding because he doesn't know he's in the middle of a discussion on an internet forum that he's probably never heard of.

But the NS posters can't respond to you because they don't know what you're saying about it -- whether you're defending these arguments, saying they're totally idiotic, whatever.

So they're addressing reasoned arguments and criticisms of logic to someone who's never going to reply. Which means you'd better, since you started the thread.

http://operation513.blogspot.com/2008/07/kalam-cosmological-argument-for-gods.html

(edit:)This website been doing the rounds in a few forums i hang in, and been getting some nazzy answer from both side of the fence, and i not seen a atheist vs theist argument on here for a week or so, and i miss as they amuse me. So I thought I put this on here and see what you guys think of it.
I think all "proofs of god" are drivel. I think the same of all "proofs against god." Sorry. It's the ultimate talking around something without actually talking about it.

If people want to amuse themselves with this kind of nonsense, that's fine, but, speaking as just one NSG member, if I'm going to waste my time, I'd rather argue over how to remake the Lord of the Rings movies or argue about the design specifications of Star Trek space ships. They generate fewer really hostile arguments -- and when they do, it's funnier.

Also, my mind has been poisoned against "proof of/against god" arguments by this site:
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Proof_of_Ceiling_Cat

So I'm crippled when it comes to this topic, but you kids have fun. :D

Who said i wrote it?
no one.

but you havent responded to our excellent points either.

Could someone explain to me what a "changeless being" is? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

How can God be both a "personal agent" and the "first cause" when that first cause must be outside time and space? An agent is something that acts, and acting implies time.

Things get much easier if we look at the logic and just conclude the first event (if any) had no cause. I'm a theist and I say so, so there.

The logic is flawed.

First, he postulates that the Universe has a beginning. Since this can't be known, it can't be postulated. The universe, as we know it has a beginning - the big bang. But something existed before the big bang, which I will, for the sake of argument, call the proto-universe. Essentially, we're dealing with infinity, which has no beginning and no end, thus, no cause.

Then, another person postulates that God has no beginning, again, that is unknowable.

Logic is only as good as what is postulated, and, depending on what you postulate, you can prove anything. It's a good whore.

The logic is flawed.

First, he postulates that the Universe has a beginning. Since this can't be known, it can't be postulated.


Nope. You can postulate pretty much anything you like in logic.

Frex:

Socrates is a man with exactly 2,000 hairs on his legs.
All men with exactly 2,000 hairs on their legs are philosophers.
Thus, Socrates is a philosopher.

Perfectly fine logic.

Logic is only as good as what is postulated, and, depending on what you postulate, you can prove anything. It's a good whore.

Nope. Logic has little to do with proving anything. It can only realy help us to display the relations between propositions, and determine the validity of arguments based upon them.

When it comes to determining the truth or falsity of ontological claims logic is useless.

More interesting religious argument - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt1Yo610lG0

A more interesting religious argument is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4


1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
A little more on topic, assertion #1 is a bit iffy. I find that assuming such things makes an ASS of you and me.:D

http://operation513.blogspot.com/2008/07/kalam-cosmological-argument-for-gods.html

(edit:)This website been doing the rounds in a few forums i hang in, and been getting some nazzy answer from both side of the fence, and i not seen a atheist vs theist argument on here for a week or so, and i miss as they amuse me. So I thought I put this on here and see what you guys think of it.

Kalam is good, not as solid as Anselm's Ontological Argument, but pretty decent.

not as solid as Anselm's Ontological Argument

:p

History has already left you in the dust.

He makes the same mistake as everyone who's made the argument in the past made: he assumes we can apply the set of plausible assumptions we have about the behavior of this universe to events that are inherently outside of it (by trying to explain its beginning).

I killed god last week. Therefore he used to exist, but doesn't anymore. Everyone wins! :p

Seriously, though, I have yet to be proven that the universe has a beginning. Yes, I accept the big bang, but there's no proof that it wasn't preceded by a big crunch and that by another universe.

Atma's current theory:

...
universe
(crunch)
(bang)
universe
(crunch)
(bang)
universe <--You are here
(crunch)
(bang)
universe
(crunch)
(bang)
universe
...

I killed god last week. Therefore he used to exist, but doesn't anymore. Everyone wins! :p

Seriously, though, I have yet to be proven that the universe has a beginning. Yes, I accept the big bang, but there's no proof that it wasn't preceded by a big crunch and that by another universe.

Atma's current theory:

...
universe
(crunch)
(bang)
universe
(crunch)
(bang)
universe <--You are here
(crunch)
(bang)
universe
(crunch)
(bang)
universe
...

Ahhh a great example of the creator having the hiccups!

:p

History has already left you in the dust.

Not exactly a devastating critique. Not even really a rebuttal at all, more in the realm of general assholery.

Not exactly a devastating critique. Not even really a rebuttal at all, more in the realm of general assholery.

Right, because it's so funny that people are still trotting that one out. It's prima facie absurd, and the fact that people find it difficult to come up with a precise rebuttal is more due to the confused nature of the argument itself than any insight it actually offers us. I'll present one anyway, though.

We simply can't treat "existence" as a property of a concept like "God" in the relevant sense. In considering the existence of a concept, we test its content against reality... but we fall into paradox if that content itself references its existence, if it makes a claim about actual reality such that the conceptual boundary between "potential truth" and "actual truth" is abridged. (Tellingly, no truth about the universe is said to necessitate God in the ontological argument--merely the nature of the concept itself. But how can a potential being become a necessary one without any foundation of its necessity in the real world?)

This problem is linguistic and not logical. It is most comparable to problems of self-reference, like "This statement is false", where the statement we are dealing with makes a claim about its own truth value... thus similarly trespassing the borders of the legitimate content of statements.

Right, because it's so funny that people are still trotting that one out. It's prima facie absurd, and the fact that people find it difficult to come up with a precise rebuttal is more due to the confused nature of the argument itself than any insight it actually offers us. I'll present one anyway, though.

We simply can't treat "existence" as a property of a concept like "God" in the relevant sense. In considering the existence of a concept, we test its content against reality... but we fall into paradox if that content itself references its existence, if it makes a claim about actual reality such that the conceptual boundary between "potential truth" and "actual truth" is abridged. (Tellingly, no truth about the universe is said to necessitate God in the ontological argument--merely the nature of the concept itself. But how can a potential being become a necessary one without any foundation of its necessity in the real world?)

This problem is linguistic and not logical. It is most comparable to problems of self-reference, like "This statement is false", where the statement we are dealing with makes a claim about its own truth value... thus similarly trespassing the borders of the legitimate content of statements.

We're not treating existence as a property. That's the failure of Kant's "existence is not a predicate" response. What the Ontological Argument claims is that the concept of God entails its instantiation. The fact that you, or I, cannot grasp how a potential being can "become" a necessary one without any foundation in the real world is irrelevant: We do not have perfect knowledge, and might not have the ability to grasp this if we did. This counter-argument amounts claiming "No concept can entail its own instantiation" in order to argue against an argument which claims there is at least one concept that does.
Further, the concept of God makes no claims whatsoever about its own truth value or its own instantiation; the instantiation of the concept is entailed, not inherent, in the concept itself. Like many classic problems of philosophy, this one can't be resolved by the contemporary dismissal with Philosophy of Language.

We're not treating existence as a property. What the Ontological Argument claims is that the concept of God entails its instantiation.

These are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the latter claim is made because of the former assumption: since existence is a property of the God concept, to deny the existence of the God concept is inherently contradictory. That's what the ontological argument is.

The fact that you, or I, cannot grasp how a potential being can "become" a necessary one without any foundation in the real world is irrelevant:

It is not irrelevant, because necessity is inherently something we must understand. We need not understand every truth in the universe. But when we assign the quality of necessity to a truth, that is a judgment, a judgment that must be justified.

Anyone who falls for any argument that appears logical in philosophy will end up a confused mess. Our intuition about when a line of reasoning is ridiculous is a valuable force... because there are so many ways to manipulate the terms of an argument. The ontological argument is just another example.

This counter-argument amounts claiming "No concept can entail its own instantiation" in order to argue against an argument which claims there is at least one concept that does.

Yes, it does... but this is not an argument either. You have not solved the problem: you have not addressed why the content of the concept should be able to address the content of the world such that we can disallow a certain statement about the content of the world based upon the content of the concept.

"Existence" is not really a statement about the concept at all. It is a statement about reality. It is not subject to proof by definition: it is beyond the scope of any definition. Insofar as I can legitimately contain "existence" in a concept, it is just conceptual, hypothetical existence: I conceive of it existing. It does not follow that it actually does.

You know this already, and if you had never heard of the ontological argument and I said "I know there is a pink unicorn in existence because I can imagine a pink unicorn that is greater than any other conceivable pink unicorn", you would laugh in my face. (Maybe you could argue that the "greatest pink unicorn" is just a stand-in for God... but then I could alter the argument: I could limit, for instance, the scope of the pink unicorn's greatness.)

Further, the concept of God makes no claims whatsoever about its own truth value or its own instantiation;

Obviously it does. This is the whole point of the argument: to define a being as greater than any other includes defining it as a being that exists, because a being that did not exist would not be as great as a being that did.

This is an argument from the content of the concept of "greater." It's not a matter of entailment.

Yawwwwwhn ... booooooring!

Assumption no. 1 is false: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle