The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

Two things here very quickly :

1. I do enjoy discoursing with you, you seem to be a lot more mature than some here who just post random nonsensical irrelevant posts. Im just not going to be discussing anything related to God unless you admit that the word is intelligible.

"I'm not going to discuss anything related to God with you unless you admit that I'm right." Brilliant move!

 

[Davian]

Two things here very quickly :

1. I do enjoy discoursing with you, you seem to be a lot more mature than some here who just post random nonsensical irrelevant posts. Im just not going to be discussing anything related to God unless you admit that the word is intelligible.
...

"I'm not going to discuss anything related to God with you unless you admit that I'm right." Brilliant move!

A little transparent, was he?

 

[Davian]

Elioenai26, will you please address my posts? I didn't write them for giggles, you know?

I'm still waiting for a response to mine, too.

I think that the problem might be that we have stepped outside of the WLC 'playbook'.

Perhaps if we were to restate our postions and objections in a way that they can be addressed by the information freely available from reasonablefaith.org, we would help Elioenai26 get this thread out of its current state.

 

[Elioenai26]

This thread is for discussion regarding the KCA.

Please keep this in mind please.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

This thread is for discussion regarding the KCA.

Please keep this in mind please.

You haven't given sufficient evidence that your premises are true.

 

[The Engineer]

This thread is for discussion regarding the KCA.

Please keep this in mind please.

If that's the case, I'd say you stick to the topic. But please, stop posting irrelevant crap and then berate us for responding to it.

You know, that's the second time you posted Dr Goetz and the second time I refuted all of his points. If you're really interested in the topic but are afraid of derailing this thread, I suggest you look into the mind-brain-dualism thread.

 

[Elioenai26]

This thread is for discussion of the KCA. The Dr. Goetz article was given in response to a person's question regarding certain inferred properties of the argued cause of the conclusion of the KCA.

Thank you

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This thread is for discussion of the KCA.

OK. The Kalam argument is flawed in its treatment of the mathematical concept of infinity.

 

[Elioenai26]

OK. The Kalam argument is flawed in its treatment of the mathematical concept of infinity.

State your case. I am eager to hear it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This thread is for discussion of the KCA. The Dr. Goetz article was given in response to a person's question regarding certain inferred properties of the argued cause of the conclusion of the KCA.

Thank you

"Minds are immaterial. The universe was created by an immaterial mind."
"Minds aren't immaterial."
"Yes they are. [Inserts copy-and-paste here]"
"No, this isn't a good argument, for the following reasons... [Gives counter-points]"
"Please stay on topic."

 

[Elioenai26]

"Minds are immaterial. The universe was created by an immaterial mind."
"Minds aren't immaterial."
"Yes they are. [Inserts copy-and-paste here]"
"No, this isn't a good argument, for the following reasons... [Gives counter-points]"
"Please stay on topic."

This thread is not about dualism or determinism. It is about the KCA. There exists a thread on dualism in this forum already. In depth discussion on dualism and determinism should be engaged there, not here.

 

[Davian]

So you are maintaining that the best explanation for the universe is that an abstract object with no causal powers "caused" the universe to come into existence?

Does this sound logical to you?

"sounds logical" is not science. "Common sense" has led to many dead ends.

A "disembodied mind"? Is that like material-free oxidation?

Where did you establish that the instantiation of the cosmos required an external cause?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This thread is not about dualism or determinism. It is about the KCA. There exists a thread on dualism in this forum already. In depth discussion on dualism and determinism should be engaged there, not here.

You introduced dualist assumptions into this thread as part of your argument. If you didn't want to discuss them, then why did you introduce them? It seems more than a bit contradictory for you to reprimand others for discussing ideas that you brought into the thread because you thought they would support your argument.

Dualist assumptions are worthwhile discussing given that a large part of your argument depends on them and you continue bringing them up (only to reprimand others when they comment on them).

 

[The Engineer]

This thread is not about dualism or determinism. It is about the KCA. There exists a thread on dualism in this forum already. In depth discussion on dualism and determinism should be engaged there, not here.

If dualism is relevant to the topic, then this means that discussing it is relevant to the topic, too. If it's not relevant, then why do you mention it in the first place?

I just looked again. You actually posted in the dualism thread, but only to point out a minor mistake in the original post which wasn't a mistake at all. Afterwards, you never posted in the thread again. Considering you seem to be so interested in the topic, that's a little strange.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If dualism is relevant to the topic, then this means that discussing it is relevant to the topic, too. If it's not relevant, then why do you mention it in the first place?

I just looked again. You actually posted in the dualism thread, but only to point out a minor mistake in the original post which wasn't a mistake at all. Afterwards, you never posted in the thread again. Considering you seem to be so interested in the topic, that's a little strange.

He demands that we stick to discussing his variant of the cosmological argument. It is impossible to talk about his argument without talking about dualism because his argument is fundamentally a dualist one (in several respects): material-immaterial, time-timelessness, space-spacelessness, natural-supernatural, Etc. If we are to stop talking about dualism then we might as well stop talking about the argument.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

State your case. I am eager to hear it.

The KCA argues as follows:

1. Every event has a cause.
   1. We know this intuitively.
   2. Therefore, it's true.
2. Ipso facto, there is either an infinite regress of causes, or a first, uncaused cause.
   1. An actual infinity cannot exist
   2. An infinite regress is an actual infinity
   3. Therefore, an infinite regress cannot exist
3. Therefore, there was a first, uncaused cause

The errors lies in each premise: (1), (2-1), and (2-2).

(1) is inherently unsubstantiated (no argument is given; even William Craig only points to its 'intuitive obviousness', hardly an airtight argument), and outright false once you consider the deeper aspects of quantum mechanics.

(2-1) is likewise unsubstantiated - no argument is given to say that an actual infinity cannot exist. It's as vacuous as saying an actual 'two' cannot exist. And, like such a claim, it's trivial to disprove: I can hold up two apples and say, "Here, an actual 'two'", and I can hold up a black hole and say, "Here, an actual infinity".

(2-2) argues against an infinite regress. One argument usually put forward for it is that, if the universe were eternal, then we'd never get to the present. This results from a mistreatment of infinity - briefly, we can traverse the infinite, so long as we have a) an infinity of finite steps, or b) a finite number of infinitely long steps. If the universe were eternal, then criterion (a) is satisfied. In other words, the error of such an argument lies in trying to use the logic of a finite universe in an eternal one - what conclusions we draw from a finite universe are not necessarily applicable to an eternal one, such as starting from the beginning and watching a clock tick to the present - there is no beginning in an eternal universe.

 

[Elioenai26]

You introduced dualist assumptions into this thread as part of your argument. If you didn't want to discuss them, then why did you introduce them? It seems more than a bit contradictory for you to reprimand others for discussing ideas that you brought into the thread because you thought they would support your argument.

Dualist assumptions are worthwhile discussing given that a large part of your argument depends on them and you continue bringing them up (only to reprimand others when they comment on them).

Several things to note:

1. The KCA argues that the universe has a cause for it's existence. Period. That is all.

2. The conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic.

3. This is where the KCA ends. Once we arrive at it's conclusion, it has fulfilled it's purpose.

4. We use logical inferrence to the best explanation to arrive at what some of the properties or attributes of said cause must possess.

5. From (4) and following, it has been shown that the cause of the universe must possess attributes which exactly describe the monotheistic God of the Judaeo-Christian worldview.

6. This thread, is devoted primarily to substantiating the first two premises of the KCA, not in discussing the properties or attributes of said cause.

7. If we are in agreement that premises (i) and (ii) are more plausibly true than their opposites, I shall start a thread on the necesssary attributes of said cause.

8. It is apparent, however, that there still seems to be some objections to the first two premises. Therefore, I will be endeavoring in this thread, to answer those first.

9. Dualism is definently worthwhile discussing, just not in this thread to any great extent.

10. I have reprimanded no one. All I ask is that we try to stay on topic as much as is possible. I realize there will be at times deviations into other things, but I am not going to allow the thread to derail into completely independent topics that have no bearing in premises (i) and (ii).

He demands that we stick to discussing his variant of the cosmological argument. It is impossible to talk about his argument without talking about dualism because his argument is fundamentally a dualist one (in several respects): material-immaterial, time-timelessness, space-spacelessness, natural-supernatural, Etc. If we are to stop talking about dualism then we might as well stop talking about the argument.

My argument is not fundamentally dualistic in any way.

The KCA is not built from any dualistic presupposition whatsoever. It is grounded in the metaphysical reality that something cannot come from nothing uncaused, and that the universe began to exist at some point in the distant past. There is no allusion in either of these two premises that can even remotely be seen as dualistic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Several things to note:

1. The KCA argues that the universe has a cause for it's existence. Period. That is all.

That is obviously not all given that you are, in addition to that, arguing that the cause is of a particular kind (i.e. immaterial, timeless, and so on).

2. The conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic.

Yes, it does. But that does not mean that the premises are sound.

4. We use logical inferrence to the best explanation to arrive at what some of the properties or attributes of said cause must possess.

If we are using an inference to the best explanation to arrive at what some of the properties the said cause must possess, then we would never have arrived at the properties that no known cause possesses (e.g. immateriality).

5. From (4) and following, it has been shown that the cause of the universe must possess attributes which exactly describe the monotheistic God of the Judaeo-Christian worldview.

Or any other deity...

6. This thread, is devoted primarily to substantiating the first two premises of the KCA, not in discussing the properties or attributes of said cause.

But you have spent most of the thread speculating exactly that.

7. If we are in agreement that premises (i) and (ii) are more plausibly true than their opposites, I shall start a thread on the necesssary attributes of said cause.

Why start another thread? You want us to constrain everyone else's discussion to only those first two premises, while you conjecture well beyond them.

8. It is apparent, however, that there still seems to be some objections to the first two premises. Therefore, I will be endeavoring in this thread, to answer those first.

9. Dualism is definently worthwhile discussing, just not in this thread to any great extent.

Why not here? It is apparent that your argument is a dualist argument.

10. I have reprimanded no one. All I ask is that we try to stay on topic as much as is possible. I realize there will be at times deviations into other things, but I am not going to allow the thread to derail into completely independent topics that have no bearing in premises (i) and (ii).

Given that you have argued beyond premises (i) and (ii) I don't see the point of constraining our discussion to only those two premises.

My argument is not fundamentally dualistic in any way.

The KCA is not built from any dualistic presupposition whatsoever. It is grounded in the metaphysical reality that something cannot come from nothing uncaused, and that the universe began to exist at some point in the distant past. There is no allusion in either of these two premises that can even remotely be seen as dualistic.

No, but your argument includes more than the idea that the universe began to exist some finite time ago. It includes assumptions about the nature and metaphysical status of what brought it into existence.

 

[Gadarene]

10. I have reprimanded no one. All I ask is that we try to stay on topic as much as is possible. I realize there will be at times deviations into other things, but I am not going to allow the thread to derail into completely independent topics that have no bearing in premises (i) and (ii).

Of course not, not if it involves actually responding to a point, then you'll just hide behind the rules.

 

[Elioenai26]

The KCA argues as follows:

1. Every event has a cause.
   1. We know this intuitively.
   2. Therefore, it's true.
2. Ipso facto, there is either an infinite regress of causes, or a first, uncaused cause.
   1. An actual infinity cannot exist
   2. An infinite regress is an actual infinity
   3. Therefore, an infinite regress cannot exist
3. Therefore, there was a first, uncaused cause

The errors lies in each premise: (1), (2-1), and (2-2).

(1) is inherently unsubstantiated (no argument is given; even William Craig only points to its 'intuitive obviousness', hardly an airtight argument), and outright false once you consider the deeper aspects of quantum mechanics.

1. Premise (i) is a fundamental principle of classical metaphysics.

2. Virtual particles do not come into being from nothing. The theories in question have to deal with particles orriginating as a fluctuation of the energy in the quantum vaccum. In physcis a vaccum is a sea of fluctuating energy and violent activity having a physical structure and governed by the laws of physics. To tell lay people that this is an example is something coming from nothing is quite frankly a distortion of these theories and an abuse of science by those who appeal to them. Popular magazines and shows on television inevitably have to appeal to metaphors which are highly misleading and inaccurate to explain highly techinical ideas dealt with in the academic realm.

3. To attack the first premise is to simply stop doing serious metaphysics.

4. To maintain that the universe could come from nothing, by nothing, for nothing, requires unsubstantiated faith in a completely irrational position.

5. I have dealt with this alleged position that quantum mechanics can be used to cast a shadow of doubt on the veracity of premise (i) numerous times in the previous fifty pages. I shall refer you to them for further study.

(2-1) is likewise unsubstantiated - no argument is given to say that an actual infinity cannot exist.

This position is clearly incorrect. There are several good arguments to maintain that an actual infinite number of things cannot exist. They are:

1. An actual infinite and a potential infinite are two different things

2. A potential infinite is an ideal limit or conceptual idea which never actually exists but is alluded to for the purposes of demonstrating ideal limits. For example, any finite distance can be subdivided by half, then by a quarter and so on to infinity, but this is simply an ideal limit which is never approachable and is indicated in mathematics by the ∞ symbol.

2. An actual infinite is not growing to infinity but is composed of an actual infinite number of parts or components and is symbolized by the hebrew letter א

3. Various absurdities arise when maintaining that an actual infinite exists, and therefore is shown to be illogical and irrational to maintain, as well as counter-intuitive

4. Imagine a situation in which an actual infinite number of things exist. One of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century Matthew Hilbert created:

Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel is a mathematical veridical paradox (a non-contradictory speculation that is strongly counter-intuitive) about infinite sets presented by German mathematician David Hilbert. It showed the complete absurdity that would be inherent in something that contained an actual infinite number of things.

5. Likewise, to maintain that an actual infinite number of past days has been traversed is incoherent and illogical because an infinite number of past days cannot be traversed. But we exist this day in history.

6. Some may argue that an infinite set of numbers can exist, which we have shown above is true, so why cannot an infinite amount of past days have existed? This is simply an argument for an actual infinite on the basis of the possibility of a potential infinite. The first (actual infinite) is a concrete reality, the latter (potential) is merely theoretical. Mathematically, we can indeed conceive of an infinite number of days, but actually we could never live or or traverse an infinite number of days. One is exercised in theory, the other actually. Likewise, you can conceive of an infinite number of points between two bookends on a shelf, but you could not fit an infinite number of books between them. The points are abstract, the books are concrete or actual.

It's as vacuous as saying an actual 'two' cannot exist. And, like such a claim, it's trivial to disprove: I can hold up two apples and say, "Here, an actual 'two'", and I can hold up a black hole and say, "Here, an actual infinity".

This analogy is quite inept for several reasons:

1. For the aforementioned reasons, saying that an actual infinite number of things cannot exist is far from vacuous. It is substantiated in several lines of argumentation, namely in the untenability of maintaing that the inherent absurdities that accompany an actual infinite number of things are actually possible. We have no evidence, no warrant, philosophical or scientific that would cause us to maintain that an actual infinite number of things does exist. However, we have good arguments both from intuition and philosophy that they do not.

2. Suffice it to say that you cannot hold up a black hole and say: "Here is an actual infinity".

A black hole is, in layman's terms, a region of spacetime where gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping. Even if someone were to unsubstantiatingly purport that a black hole qualifies as an "actual infinity", this still does nothing to undercut the argument that the universe came into existence at some point in the distant past which is what premise (ii) of the Kalam argues.

(2-2) argues against an infinite regress. One argument usually put forward for it is that, if the universe were eternal, then we'd never get to the present. This results from a mistreatment of infinity - briefly, we can traverse the infinite, so long as we have a) an infinity of finite steps, or b) a finite number of infinitely long steps. If the universe were eternal, then criterion (a) is satisfied. In other words, the error of such an argument lies in trying to use the logic of a finite universe in an eternal one - what conclusions we draw from a finite universe are not necessarily applicable to an eternal one, such as starting from the beginning and watching a clock tick to the present - there is no beginning in an eternal universe.

This is quite incoherent for several reasons:

1. An infinity of finite steps, is an infinite number of steps regardless of how you word it!

2. A finite number of infinitely long steps is rather unintelligible. What is an infinitely long step anyway? How does one make an infinitely long step?

3. We have shown that the universe is not eternal, but came into existence at some point in the finite past. This argument is supported by at least five lines of scientific argumentation and two lines of philosophical argumentation. I shall refer you to the previous fifty plus pages of this thread for further study.

4. I agree, there would be no beginning in an eternal universe, but the scientific and philosophical evidence clearly shows that the universe is not eternal, but that it came into existence literally out of nothing at some point in the distant past.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert Testimony


-“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow

-“The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.” - Arthur Eddington, British Astrophysicist and philosopher of science​

-Religion and science are opposed...but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp anything. -Physicist Sir William Bragg​

-"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein​

-Science only provides a car and chauffeur for us. It does not tell us where to drive. The car and the chauffeur will take us into the highlands or into the ditch with equal efficiency. -Dr. George Lundberg, professor of sociology at the University of Washington​

-The scientific method can teach us nothing beyond how facts are related to and conditioned by each other...knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduce from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. -Albert Einstein​

-The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. -Stephen Hawking, British Theoretical Physicist and author​

-“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow​

-“The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and earth.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow​

-A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing. - Anthony Kenny, British author and atheist​