Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by wil, Feb 5, 2015.
Kal?m cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People buy this?? Really?
Thomas is a smart guy, are we assuming he believes something that is self-evidently stupid? Perhaps we should hear him out before we start with the multiple question marks and the 'really?' I've seen so much around here lately?
Sorry my question is simple...
It is turtles all the way down... or not?
If we presuppose the universe has to 'begin' at some time by a cause...
How can we not presuppose that the cause has to 'begin' at sometime?
Or vice versa...
the premise seems to fall apart....
I called nothing and no one stupid. People really buy okra... I don't, and I am not calling them stupid...I am just asking Really???
ps... If anyone is stupid it is me.... as I can't see how this makes any sense at all.
The argument form causation has a respectable history in philosophy from ancient times to the present: if you wish to argue against it, maybe you should study the subject rather than hanging out on-line (or even reading popularised physics)!
The belief that events don't just happen for no reason at all is universal: if your computer stops working, you look for a fault. David Hume claimed that the belief cannot be justified, but admitted that he was forced to act as if if could be. Thomas Reid retorted that if our lives force us to accept a belief, then any philosophical argument against it must be flawed.
If every physical event is explicable in terms of a previous one, then there are two possibilities. Either there is a starting point or there isn't. If there is no starting point, then nothing is explicable at all: if A is explained by B, it is only truly explained if there is an explanation for B, and so on. But our experience and innate belief is that events do have causes. If we are to maintain that, we need a first cause.
As the Greeks realised (unlike Hume), a first cause cannot belong to the same category as the subsequent chain of causation. If every physical event has a cause, then any postulated first physical cause would itself, as a physical event, have a cause. To say "the present state of the universe is explained by the big bang" is no different to saying "the present state of the universe is explained by its state last Wednesday." Both are true in a sense, but the explanation on offer is inadequate. The first claim just sounds better!
The conclusion is that the only possible first cause is a mental event rather than a physical one. Of course, that doesn't imply — as Christians and Muslims claim — that the universe has a beginning in time or that that the cause is a person.
I don't believe that the claim is that G!d is a person that caused the event.
Simply questioning if we say something that exist must have a beginning...
then either G!d had a beginning, or doesn't exist?
Or if we are saying that G!d can exist without a beginning, why can't the universe.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander...or so it seems to me.
You believe the universe is infinite?
I don't know. I know there is contention that the big bang was just a result of the universe shrinking and banging again and again (the only begotten continually begotten)
Again, I am not big on knowing the unknown...the hereafter and such.
I just don't see how the argument holds any water at all. (the two premises themselves seem faulty and need 'faith')
If I may be allowed, I will simply express my thoughts in Kalam from a post I put up on another thread.
Oh Good Gods Above and Below! Thomas you cannot be serious. Kalam? Foundation for the term Kalamity? Another of our regular posters (postees??) bangs on with this rubbish. Kalam is one of the worst abusers of the concept of logic as a defense of an argument. He simply strings non sequiters together with no foundation for any of his statements.
Okay I am ranting. lol. Give me a moment......
Okay I'm back and zen again.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause; (No. Not necessarily).
2. The universe began to exist; (No. Not necessarily).
3. The universe has a cause. (No. Not necessarily).
This argument is a classical case of failed logic every step of the way. It is a triumph of logical fallacies every step of the way.
1. is the fallacy called Appeal to probability which is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).
2. is the fallacy called Argument from ignorance which assumes that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
3. is the fallacy called Fallacy of exclusive premises which is a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.
I mean Really. Anyone can play this game.
1. Every thought has a foundation in knowledge.
2. Thoughts exist.
3. Knowledge is the cause.
See. Easy. Can anyone prove me wrong? Nope. Does that mean my logical statement is correct. Certainly not!
Well at least I am not the only one...
But if they DA is advocating for me...what does that make me? Really???
Both arguments – for a finite or an infinite universe have their problems, and as the discussion is ongoing, neither argument is conclusive.
To write either side off is, I would suggest, to ignore the contra argument.
Because the qualities we predicate of the Prime Mover are not the same qualities we predicate of the moved.
Well here we get into the complexities and confusions of 'religion v science', which I think it's best to steer well clear of ... when I introduced Kalam in the other discussion, it was from a scientific viewpoint, not a theological one. Hence the mention of Aristotle (who says basically the same thing).
So I'm happy to discuss Kalam philosophically, and metaphysically, but not theologically, because it introduces too many aspects that are irrelevant to the discussion.
The first being that 'person' in the extended Kalam hypothesis signifies the God of the Bible. It might for Craig, it doesn't for me ...
I think we move into the slippery ground of 'science v religion'.
It is for goose and gander because they are the same species of thing. God and the universe are not the same species of thing, so the rule doesn't apply.
Maybe because you're introducing your own theological speculations into what is essentially a philosophical discussion?
Aquinas presented his famous 'Five Proofs', but went to some length to point out they do not prove the God of Faith, but rather God as the object of philosophical speculation.
so we agree? that this KCA is not proof of anything? Just something to ponder?
Separate names with a comma.