Driving Force

[durangodawood]

.....The underlying question of the Kalam is whether an infinite temporal sequence of past events is possible. If someone doesn't address this question, they're not responding to the Kalam at all.

Infinite regression violates no essential facts.

And...there are other options beside infinite temporal regression that would invalidate kalam. Like what "happens" "beyond" our temporal universe. There's no basis for insisting this time and this space is all there "ever is".

Kalam demands an unjustifiable certainly about the nature of all reality.

 

[cvanwey]

Premise 1 does not state that things are created out of nothing. It actually asserts the exact opposite--that things do not come about from nothing, so your objection here is a non sequitur.



Premise 2 appears to be nothing more than a blank assertion because you stated it as a blank assertion. A genuine Kalam cosmological argument would put a good deal of effort into arguing for Premise 2. You would need to engage with these arguments and state why they fail rather than falsely declaring that they do not exist.



I agree. The argument as you stated it does not support a theistic conclusion, but it never even draws one in the first place. You made no effort anywhere to get from "the universe has a cause" to "God is the cause of the universe," so it's no wonder that your argument is trivial in supporting a theistic position. It doesn't even try to.



The way you've formulated it, I don't think it even begs its own question. It really just doesn't say anything at all. There are such big holes in the reasoning you've presented, that instead of declaring the Kalam to be logically fallacious, you should look into how people actually try to defend the aspects of the argument that you've skipped over.



It doesn't, though. The whole point of the Kalam is to argue for and defend the premises themselves, not to just assert them as obviously true. If you're not engaging with the actual arguments for those premises, though, you're not even bothering to take them apart. You're just asserting falsely that they don't exist.

The underlying question of the Kalam is whether an infinite temporal sequence of past events is possible. If someone doesn't address this question, they're not responding to the Kalam at all.

It seems like you are more motivated to try to prove how 'inept' I appear to be, verses addressing what I am actually saying. You are either not reading my responses for what they are, or, you are looking for ways to assure I look clumsy.

You will notice I placed the words in red as caveats, with qualifiers. You may also notice, that I stated when arguing with theists, namely Christians, this is often their first point posed towards me.

Case and point, if I was to ask WLC, he would regurgitate this video:

Maybe you can hit him up to correct him a bit. That would be awesome

I understand the 'Kalam' can be used for many things. I also understand theists rebranded it, namely WLC way back when, and repurposed it....

My point being, when debating a theist about the 'existence of God', I'm saying it is surely not long before I'm confronted with this syllogism. And though you may disagree, and maybe even I, the 'intent' of the person presenting such to me, are using it in the fashion I demonstrated. Are they misrepresenting? Maybe.

However, regardless, I have yet to see a scenario of the Kalam which demonstrates a valid conclusion. There exists too much word play and loose usages of words, and their definitions. Do I need to tell you why? NO. You stated you hate it as well. So what would be the point?

But at the end of the day, for me, it's instead very simple....

If we had evidence, what be the need for a syllogism in this specific case (i.e.) 'Does God/intentional agency/creator/ID exist?'

I asked YOU.... Does their exist a syllogism which appears to demonstrate the existence of God/ID/other? You stated PSR, but did not elaborate. I'm telling you I have yet to hear one which appears convincing. Would you care to prove me wrong?

 

[Silmarien]

Infinite regression violates no essential facts.

That's an empty assertion. You would need to actually address the arguments against an infinite temporal sequence of past events, and show why they fail. You can't just say that they fail and pretend that you've won the argument. That's not how things work.

As for essential facts, what do you mean by that?

And...there are other options beside infinite temporal regression that would invalidate kalam. Like what "happens" "beyond" our temporal universe. There's no basis for insisting this time and this space is all there "ever is".

Kalam demands an unjustifiable certainly about the nature of all reality.

Not necessarily. If an infinite temporal regression is impossible, then that would apply to other theoretical universes rather than just our own. Assuming that temporal universes do not just magically exist uncaused, we still need to account for them, so I think the key here is what conclusions we can make about the nature of time.

It seems like you are more motivated to try to prove how 'inept' I appear to be, verses addressing what I am actually saying. You are either not reading my responses for what they are, or, you are looking for ways to assure I look clumsy.

I am reading your responses for what they are. That's the problem, because you haven't actually addressed anything that even William Craig says concerning the Kalam. He certainly doesn't just blindly assert his premises. He's got a number of arguments supporting them, and you're basically saying that they don't exist.

If you're going to say that something is logically flawed, it'd be nice if you could actually point out where exactly these flaws are, rather than just manufacturing a bunch of your own instead.

I asked YOU.... Does their exist a syllogism which appears to demonstrate the existence of God/ID/other? You stated PSR, but did not elaborate. I'm telling you I have yet to hear one which appears convincing. Would you care to prove me wrong?

You can look up PSR yourself if you want to. It's pretty famous. I've told you that I'm not interested in apologetics. I am interested in the field of logic, though, so if you're going to claim that the Kalam is fallacious, I want to see you demonstrate that this is so. You haven't done that yet.

 

[cvanwey]

You haven't done that yet.

Did you watch the video?

 

[Silmarien]

Did you watch the video?

Yes, I did. Did you? The whole video is about defending the premises, and you have so far responded to nothing that was said in it.

 

[durangodawood]

....Not necessarily. If an infinite temporal regression is impossible, then that would apply to other theoretical universes rather than just our own......

If thats impossible (which I dispute, but stipulate for now) then yes it would apply within them. But we can say nothing about the possible "causes" of universes from without. God? Nature? An uncreated eternal X? Kalam demands we make rules about realms we currently have no access to.

 

[Silmarien]

If thats impossible (which I dispute, but stipulate for now) then yes it would apply within them. But we can say nothing about the possible "causes" of universes from without. God? Nature? An uncreated eternal X? Kalam demands we make rules about realms we currently have no access to.

That's not entirely true. If there is no infinite temporal regression, then we can say one thing about possible external causes of universes: they're not temporal. Because if they were temporal, they would need to have causes themselves. So we are at an uncreated, eternal X. (Where eternal means non-temporal.)

My problem with the Kalam is that it doesn't really seem to do much of anything. There are stronger cosmological arguments out there, and the Kalam relies on them anyway, so it ends up kind of superfluous. (I'm also a pretty convinced B-theorist, so kind of in the enemy camp compared to WLC here.)

 

[durangodawood]

....I'm also a pretty convinced B-theorist....

Well I guess I have to look that up now. Not actually now, tho. I need to settle down and think about sleeping.

Good chatting with you!

 

[cvanwey]

That's not entirely true. If there is no infinite temporal regression, then we can say one thing about possible external causes of universes: they're not temporal. Because if they were temporal, they would need to have causes themselves. So we are at an uncreated, eternal X. (Where eternal means non-temporal.)

My problem with the Kalam is that it doesn't really seem to do much of anything. There are stronger cosmological arguments out there, and the Kalam relies on them anyway, so it ends up kind of superfluous. (I'm also a pretty convinced B-theorist, so kind of in the enemy camp compared to WLC here.)

I think we are starting to get to the meat of it. Rather than go over stuff which will not persuade you accordingly, let's instead explore some of the others which 'may' be tied to such...? And since you are not divulging too much, or asserting what makes a 'good argument', I"m going to provide another video. It deals with quite a few sub-topics, (hopefully ones which appear relevant to YOU)?

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, I did. Did you? The whole video is about defending the premises, and you have so far responded to nothing that was said in it.

For starters, in that video, it states that Alan Guth admits the universe must of had a beginning. And yet, when Sean Carol debated William Craig, Sean demonstrated how Alan states the universe is most likely eternal. But it does not matter. I'm beating a dead horse. You and I hate the Kalam for different reasons...

 

[Silmarien]

Well I guess I have to look that up now. Not actually now, tho. I need to settle down and think about sleeping.

Good chatting with you!

We don't believe in time. Or at least don't believe that time is anything more than a property of the universe. (I suppose I'm somewhere between A and B theories, because I don't think time is an illusion per se, but I don't think it's an ontological feature of reality either.)

Good night!

I think we are starting to get to the meat of it. Rather than go over stuff which will not persuade you accordingly, let's instead explore some of the others which 'may' be tied to such...? And since you are not divulging too much, or asserting what makes a 'good argument', I"m going to provide another video. It deals with quite a few sub-topics, (hopefully ones which appear relevant to YOU)?

Yeah, I really don't feel like watching 15 minutes of William Craig and Sean Carroll talk about fine tuning. Find a transcript if you really think there's something here worth looking at.

A good argument ought to be logically coherent. For example:

Premise 1: All Pokémon are fictional characters.
Premise 2: Sandshrew is a Pokémon.
Conclusion: Therefore, Sandshrew is a fictional character.

It's literally about nonsense, but the logical form is correct. In contrast:

Premise 1: All Pokémon are fictional characters.
Premise 2: Batman is a fictional character.
Conclusion: Therefore, Batman is a Pokémon.

This commits a logical fallacy. And then we've got something like this:

Premise 1: All Pokémon are fictional characters.
Premise 2: Batman is a Pokémon.
Conclusion: Therefore, Batman is a fictional character.

The second premise is false, but the argument is technically valid, since there's nothing wrong with the logic that gets us from the premises to the conclusion. The problem with theistic arguments is that we don't know for certain if the premises are true or false, so everything quickly becomes very controversial. You can't just scream that they're fallacious, though, and certainly not unless you're willing to bite the bullet and start knocking down some of those first principles of logic wherever you find them. Have fun trying to get empiricism working when effects don't have causes.

For starters, in that video, it states that Alan Guth admits the universe must of had a beginning. And yet, when Sean Carol debated William Craig, Sean demonstrated how Alan states the universe is most likely eternal. But it does not matter. I'm beating a dead horse. You and I hate the Kalam for different reasons...

Yeah, William Craig does have a habit of name-dropping people and saying they agree with him on a specific point. You're going to need to tell me where in that video Sean Carroll mentions Alan Guth, though, since I'm not sitting through the whole thing. (My suspicion is that Guth doesn't hold to the theory of time that Craig insists upon--eternalism with regards to the universe doesn't mean what it used to.)

Either way, the argument doesn't stand or fall depending on what Alan Guth thinks, since that would be an argument from authority and therefore a fallacy. (Though this gets us into interesting territory, since where do we draw the line between relying upon scientific consensus and ending up with an argument from authority?)

 

[cvanwey]

The problem with theistic arguments is that we don't know for certain if the premises are true or false, so everything quickly becomes very controversial. You can't just scream that they're fallacious, though, and certainly not unless you're willing to bite the bullet and start knocking down some of those first principles of logic wherever you find them. Have fun trying to get empiricism working when effects don't have causes.

My point was that I hate the Kalam, because theists will use the Kalam to argue for God, and ultimately their God.

If there exists the eternal universe model, then as I stated many responses ago, to ask such a question would be nonsense

Yeah, William Craig does have a habit of name-dropping people and saying they agree with him on a specific point. You're going to need to tell me where in that video Sean Carroll mentions Alan Guth, though, since I'm not sitting through the whole thing. (My suspicion is that Guth doesn't hold to the theory of time that Craig insists upon--eternalism with regards to the universe doesn't mean what it used to.)

Either way, the argument doesn't stand or fall depending on what Alan Guth thinks, since that would be an argument from authority and therefore a fallacy. (Though this gets us into interesting territory, since where do we draw the line between relying upon scientific consensus and ending up with an argument from authority?)

Go to 2:40. And pardon the swear words and chastising of Craig. I'm merely showing this video to demonstrate my point:

 

[Moral Orel]

....I personally don't have a problem with a video. In my estimation, if a person can pick out a video that is directly relevant to the discussion at hand, I think that's fine since it can be a great time saver [particularly if my opponent is presenting a video that is 10 minutes or less].

A time saver for the person posting the video, a time waster for the person who has to watch it. I can read faster than people can talk; I don't think that's abnormal. People shouldn't post videos unless there is a visual element that is integral to the presentation.

 

[Moral Orel]

That's an empty assertion. You would need to actually address the arguments against an infinite temporal sequence of past events, and show why they fail. You can't just say that they fail and pretend that you've won the argument. That's not how things work.

I'd like to see a thread on infinite regression if you or anyone else wants to start one. I could find reading material about it, but I prefer my philosophy taught to me conversational style. I could start a thread, but since I don't know enough about it, it would have to be framed, "Infinite regression isn't impossible. Prove me wrong!", and I don't generally like to start conversations like that...

My only thought about it thus far is that it doesn't seem any more counter-intuitive than an atemporal force "existing" at all.

 

[durangodawood]

.....So we are at an uncreated, eternal X. (Where eternal means non-temporal.)....

Which kalam rules out... based on what?

Based on nothing. Its really comical how these little humans think their minds can reach out and grasp every possible condition of reality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A time saver for the person posting the video, a time waster for the person who has to watch it. I can read faster than people can talk; I don't think that's abnormal. People shouldn't post videos unless there is a visual element that is integral to the presentation.

I think that is a matter of taste. Personally, I have little problem with a video if the speaker, however dry, is qualified to speak on such and such a topic at a higher academic level. But hey! I realize that is my taste; and you have yours.

 

[cvanwey]

I'd like to see a thread on infinite regression if you or anyone else wants to start one. I could find reading material about it, but I prefer my philosophy taught to me conversational style. I could start a thread, but since I don't know enough about it, it would have to be framed, "Infinite regression isn't impossible. Prove me wrong!", and I don't generally like to start conversations like that...

I jumped on that grenade. New Topic incoming...

 

[Silmarien]

I'd like to see a thread on infinite regression if you or anyone else wants to start one. I could find reading material about it, but I prefer my philosophy taught to me conversational style. I could start a thread, but since I don't know enough about it, it would have to be framed, "Infinite regression isn't impossible. Prove me wrong!", and I don't generally like to start conversations like that...

My only thought about it thus far is that it doesn't seem any more counter-intuitive than an atemporal force "existing" at all.

I'll need to look into it. One problem is that there are multiple different types of infinite regressions. You've got the temporal infinite regression, or an ordered sequence of accidental causes, and then you've also got infinite regressions that have nothing to do with time at all. (What infinite set of explanations accounts for the fact that laws of physics appear to exist, for example.)

That's one of the differences between the Kalam and something like the Aristotelian Argument from Motion. They're talking about different types of regressions.

Which kalam rules out... based on what?

Based on nothing. Its really comical how these little humans think their minds can reach out and grasp every possible condition of reality.

How does the Kalam rule out an uncreated, eternal X? That is basically what it's trying to prove.

 

[Willis Gravning]

I once read what seems to me to be a pretty good argument against infinite regression.

There are no examples of anything in the universe being infinite but if infinite regression is true then the universe would have had to traverse an actual infinity to arrive at the present.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm going to 'resurrect' this topic a bit.... I feel it kind of went off course, and I would like it to continue.

Yes, I'm posting another video... Why? Because it seems to cut to the 'heart' of one the biggest proponents or advocates to creationism, Dr. WLC. I find his answer both honest, and very telling, all at the same time: