Kalaam Cosmological Argument

[Mark Quayle]

If you always just shift away any responsibility of this entity to obey any logic, then of course you could argue it initiated causality and logic itself, which just smacks of special pleading and ad hoc reasoning

No, he fits logic most perfectly. But we lack much information. Meanwhile, it is altogether reasonable to say that he is logical, not because logic make sense and by it we can find out what he is, but that logic is what it is, because he is logical. It is more than poetry. The same can be said, for example, of love. Our idea of love leads us astray when we try to use it to describe him. He is not loving because it is good to be loving, nor because that is his way of behaving; rather, love is what it is, because God is love. We are pretty blind.

He is the generator.

 

[muichimotsu]

Established? by whom? No. To me, at least, it is only logical that he is not subject to that to which he subjects his creation. That is not to say, for example, since he invents existence and eternity that he is not eternally existent, but rather that our concept of that, as we apply it validly to this universe, we are able only in part to attribute it to him. We don't know what Existence is, as he is. We only know that he is.

Established by basic reason that causality requires time, because it exists in space

That's question begging: you don't get to just deflect actually addressing God's ontology by saying it just is, that's the fundamental problem in the original ontological argument from Anselm. Or are you unfamiliar with that one? It isn't exactly regarded as that convincing, except to those already convinced of Christianity being true

If I also posited some force, not personal like your god, that existed necessarily and is the origin of the universe, would I also be justified in making that argument and concluding it's true as you have with your god?

 

[muichimotsu]

No, he fits logic most perfectly. But we lack much information. Meanwhile, it is altogether reasonable to say that he is logical, not because logic make sense and by it we can find out what he is, but that logic is what it is, because he is logical. It is more than poetry. The same can be said, for example, of love. Our idea of love leads us astray when we try to use it to describe him. He is not loving because it is good to be loving, nor because that is his way of behaving; rather, love is what it is, because God is love. We are pretty blind.

He is the generator.

No, that's a transcendental argument, which is full of its own problems, because it assumes logic is contingent on a mind necessarily, rather than the application of logic, those principles practically self evident, though not existing apart from minds, in the way that physical laws would work even if no minds existed. Logic's use requiring a mind does not mean logic can also exist substantively in itself unless you're applying a mind to logic itself, practically, or making it correspond to physical laws (which makes no sense)

This is still question begging, you're defining and equivocating God based on things that make it so it cannot not exist so that the objector has to say you're wrong. At what point did someone agree that God as a concept has to fit those qualities you ascribe, like necessity, etc?

If you're just going to keep equivocating, you've demonstrated your cataphatic method just leads to logical nonsense, because it's assuming God is a coherent concept and reduce it in nature for that coherency, but dig yourself into a logical fallacy of equivocation

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, that's a transcendental argument, which is full of its own problems, because it assumes logic is contingent on a mind necessarily, rather than the application of logic, those principles practically self evident, though not existing apart from minds, in the way that physical laws would work even if no minds existed. Logic's use requiring a mind does not mean logic can also exist substantively in itself unless you're applying a mind to logic itself, practically, or making it correspond to physical laws (which makes no sense)

You assume then, logic to be solid fact, regardless of who may have set up this order of things? God made logic, or he is not God. He is not subject to it except as it is his very nature.

This is still question begging, you're defining and equivocating God based on things that make it so it cannot not exist so that the objector has to say you're wrong. At what point did someone agree that God as a concept has to fit those qualities you ascribe, like necessity, etc?

My concept is weak, my descriptions inept. I am only trying to point out that we are not capable of putting him into a basket, and that he is indeed by virtue of who he is, (not to mention by the fact that he made it all), above it all and in control of it all. I am sorry for my lack of logical explanations.

I must insist though, that his definitions are the only entirely complete and sound. To claim that God must fit our definitions is an error. Yet, when one says that therefore mine are not true, and they present a God who is subject to his creation, I say

Established by basic reason that causality requires time, because it exists in space

Sorry. Even cosmologists that reject God as first cause would disagree with you there. If they did, then there is no reasoning (so they would say) past the big bang, at which point, as (I think it was) Hawking said, time began. Hawking would not say there was ONLY disorganization before that. He would only say (I think) that we don't know.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If I also posited some force, not personal like your god, that existed necessarily and is the origin of the universe, would I also be justified in making that argument and concluding it's true as you have with your god?

If you wish to call First Cause "some force" with no clearer definition, I would say you are referring to God. I have to insist that if there is any First Cause, that is God, and there can be only one First Cause. I hope you can see why this "some force" is full of intent, though.

I think you would be hard pressed to show that some mechanical force is First Cause, and that without intent.

 

[muichimotsu]

If you wish to call First Cause "some force" with no clearer definition, I would say you are referring to God. I have to insist that if there is any First Cause, that is God, and there can be only one First Cause. I hope you can see why this "some force" is full of intent, though.

I think you would be hard pressed to show that some mechanical force is First Cause, and that without intent.

No, that's you insinuating your presumption into something that doesn't necessarily fit a common definition of the term. "God" almost necessarily entails a personal monotheistic creator entity rather than any force, a much more modern interpretation of the term

You've failed to argue why the force must have intent at all beyond appeals to transcendental arguments that fail from the start, assuming that the properties of something equate to their essence metaphysically. And, again, you're equivocating God to other properties because you can't just describe God in terms of what it isn't, you'd render it little more than mystical speculation

Cause doesn't entail intent, that's the anthropic principle clouding your reasoning. The causes within nature that cause phenomena don't need intent or agency behind them except as people want to have some relatability and not fear nature as primitive people also did (a god of storms to placate so that people wouldn't die from natural disasters of that nature)

 

[muichimotsu]

You assume then, logic to be solid fact, regardless of who may have set up this order of things? God made logic, or he is not God. He is not subject to it except as it is his very nature.

My concept is weak, my descriptions inept. I am only trying to point out that we are not capable of putting him into a basket, and that he is indeed by virtue of who he is, (not to mention by the fact that he made it all), above it all and in control of it all. I am sorry for my lack of logical explanations.

I must insist though, that his definitions are the only entirely complete and sound. To claim that God must fit our definitions is an error. Yet, when one says that therefore mine are not true, and they present a God who is subject to his creation, I say

Sorry. Even cosmologists that reject God as first cause would disagree with you there. If they did, then there is no reasoning (so they would say) past the big bang, at which point, as (I think it was) Hawking said, time began. Hawking would not say there was ONLY disorganization before that. He would only say (I think) that we don't know.

You're question begging again: there doesn't have to be agency behind existence, that's insinuating anthropic principle into metaphysics for no good reason

~~~

That's an easy way to avoid applying logical contradictions to God's nature by saying God is logic itself, but I've already pointed out you're engaging in equivocation fallacy in your thought

~~~~

If you're just going to make a bald assertion, you're not engaging in anything more than preaching as if you're convinced of the truth instead of having intellectual humility and honesty to consider you could be utterly mistaken in these presuppositions

~~~~

I'm not attributing ownership of definitions to humans, we're the only entities we can verify at all that conceived of these things and they're self correcting by nature, they're not asserted merely because we conceived of them, but because we reasoned out things like logical principles in the first place to investigate and properly assess our beliefs. You don't get to make a dogmatic claim and expect people to just buy it because you're convinced of it and believe it strongly, that's insufficient

~~~~

There is no reason to say we can be certain of anything beyond the Big Bang, that's not the same thing as saying time absolutely does not exist, only that it may exist in a different fashion if we eventually could investigate beyond that point

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, that's you insinuating your presumption into something that doesn't necessarily fit a common definition of the term. "God" almost necessarily entails a personal monotheistic creator entity rather than any force, a much more modern interpretation of the term

Fine. Have it your way. But to my presumptuous concept, if God is not First Cause, he is not God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You've failed to argue why the force must have intent at all beyond appeals to transcendental arguments that fail from the start, assuming that the properties of something equate to their essence metaphysically. And, again, you're equivocating God to other properties because you can't just describe God in terms of what it isn't, you'd render it little more than mystical speculation

First Cause has intent, because if not, it is mere mechanical fact, which is in itself subject to principles. It has been programmed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Cause doesn't entail intent, that's the anthropic principle clouding your reasoning. The causes within nature that cause phenomena don't need intent or agency behind them except as people want to have some relatability and not fear nature as primitive people also did (a god of storms to placate so that people wouldn't die from natural disasters of that nature)

God is not a cause within nature, as any other cause is. He does not fit into the unit: Universe. First Cannot does not do so. All other causes, besides first cause, are themselves effects.

 

[muichimotsu]

Fine. Have it your way. But to my presumptuous concept, if God is not First Cause, he is not God.

Even if you define God as such that doesn't make it true in reality at all, that's goalpost shifting at its essence, defining things in such a way that they fit your preconception instead of actually demonstrating the reality of your claim

 

[muichimotsu]

God is not a cause within nature, as any other cause is. He does not fit into the unit: Universe. First Cannot does not do so. All other causes, besides first cause, are themselves effects.

So special pleading now? And convenient definitions to shift any real constraints on the entity that you use to fill in gaps in logic you don't understand or refuse to because it would make you feel despair

 

[muichimotsu]

First Cause has intent, because if not, it is mere mechanical fact, which is in itself subject to principles. It has been programmed.

Principles, again, don't entail a mind in the essence of them, only a mind to appropriate them, you're constantly equivocating to make God something that is unfalsifiable and not subject to any criticism because you can just make a rhetorical quip of context to shift the burden away

 

[Mark Quayle]

Even if you define God as such that doesn't make it true in reality at all, that's goalpost shifting at its essence, defining things in such a way that they fit your preconception instead of actually demonstrating the reality of your claim

Haha, so you, like the self-proclaimed atheist, want empirical proof. You can't let common sense show you existence came from someone, not something.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So special pleading now? And convenient definitions to shift any real constraints on the entity that you use to fill in gaps in logic you don't understand or refuse to because it would make you feel despair

No. Just simple reasoning. FWIW, as I have mentioned before, filling in the gaps is commonly called scientific reasoning. Can you prove the fill-in is wrong?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Principles, again, don't entail a mind in the essence of them, only a mind to appropriate them, you're constantly equivocating to make God something that is unfalsifiable and not subject to any criticism because you can just make a rhetorical quip of context to shift the burden away

Perhaps you can demonstrate a theoretical mechanical fact that can be First Cause? The fact that God is unfalsifiable (as, in fact, is First Cause With Intent) doesn't make it illogical. We depend, even science depends, on more unfalsifiable facts than we like to admit to. Logic, Love, and many other things are unfalsifiable.

But if you want First Cause to be falsifiable, then go with mechanical fact. It cannot simply be --it must either self-create, which is logical non-sense, or have no beginning, which is logical disparation. First Cause With Intent did not self-create, but simply is, no beginning and no end. (Yeah, I know, that is unfalsifiable).

 

[muichimotsu]

Haha, so you, like the self-proclaimed atheist, want empirical proof. You can't let common sense show you existence came from someone, not something.

No, I never said that, empirical proof is more reliable when it comes to physical things we can observe in nature, but abstractions like your god as first cause are not held to the same standard, because they're conceptions of our mind that are not demonstrable, especially when they're framed as you do in terms of being necessary and equivocated with things like love and logic (which makes god less a person and more an embodiment of principles, the very mechanical thing you oppose, just in a different form)

Where is your evidence or reasoned argument that existence requires a mind behind it rather than that minds apprehend it after the fact of its existence?

 

[muichimotsu]

Perhaps you can demonstrate a theoretical mechanical fact that can be First Cause? The fact that God is unfalsifiable (as, in fact, is First Cause With Intent) doesn't make it illogical. We depend, even science depends, on more unfalsifiable facts than we like to admit to. Logic, Love, and many other things are unfalsifiable.

But if you want First Cause to be falsifiable, then go with mechanical fact. It cannot simply be --it must either self-create, which is logical non-sense, or have no beginning, which is logical disparation. First Cause With Intent did not self-create, but simply is, no beginning and no end. (Yeah, I know, that is unfalsifiable).

Gravity comes to mind as something mechanical in nature that very well could've initiated existence as we understand it

~~~

Actually, it does reasonably follow that unfalsifiable is illogical, because logical things are open to self correction: logical principles are not the same thing, but something having the property of logic means it isn't self contradictory or otherwise violating those principles that you're doing in suggesting God must be identical with logic, making it unable to be criticized at all.

~~~~

Logic is quite falsifiable in terms of application, the principles themselves are axiomatic, but that doesn't make them unfalsifiable, it makes them a practical necessity for cogency. God is not required, far as I'm concerned, for things to make sense, because we don't need to anthropomorphize principles for them to be sensible

~~~~

False dichotomy that is to your benefit, those aren't the only 2 options, because you're trying to assume that prior to existence as we know it, there was no existence, which isn't substantiated at all, it's speculative'

~~~~

And an entity with no beginning or end creates a paradox of infinity, there would never be a point in time we could find where it supposedly created the universe, because it's infinite in scale and sequence

 

[muichimotsu]

No. Just simple reasoning. FWIW, as I have mentioned before, filling in the gaps is commonly called scientific reasoning. Can you prove the fill-in is wrong?

Filling in the gaps with unfalsifiables is intellectually lazy. And now you're making an argument from ignorance fallacy: that I cannot prove your unfalsifiable wrong does not mean your unfalsifiable is true

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually, it does reasonably follow that unfalsifiable is illogical, because logical things are open to self correction: logical principles are not the same thing, but something having the property of logic means it isn't self contradictory or otherwise violating those principles that you're doing in suggesting God must be identical with logic, making it unable to be criticized at all.

Un-logical isn't the same as illogical. However, un-logical is perhaps unfalsifiable, so oh well. First Cause With Intent is not self contradictory or otherwise violating those principles. I don't say God is identical with logic. I say logic is his making. No, I can't

Logic is quite falsifiable in terms of application, the principles themselves are axiomatic, but that doesn't make them unfalsifiable, it makes them a practical necessity for cogency. God is not required, far as I'm concerned, for things to make sense, because we don't need to anthropomorphize principles for them to be sensible

But logic itself is unfalsifiable. It is a basis for reasoning, and can be shown to be useful as such, as you indicated, but that is still question begging of a sort. You can't show it to be invalid, not because it is not invalid, but because it is of a sort of thing that cannot be accessed for that purpose.

Where is your evidence or reasoned argument that existence requires a mind behind it rather than that minds apprehend it after the fact of its existence?

Because, if no mind, then you are left with mechanical fact, which I think I already showed to be illogical. Meanwhile, the idea that the mechanical principles we are subject to come from him, because of his very nature, does not at all mean he is mere mechanical fact. You kinda sloughed that thought in. (Furthermore, it is only my opinion that they are the result of his nature --it only makes sense, to me).

Most forceful to me is the acknowledgement, and this too I cannot logically prove, that mere mechanical fact cannot absolutely begin anything new.

Gravity comes to mind as something mechanical in nature that very well could've initiated existence as we understand it

At best, gravity is co-emergent with whatever emerged. Also, cosmologists like Hawking say it too (apparently) began with the big bang, at least gravity as we conceive of it at this point (we still don't know what it is). Meanwhile, to those of us who are a little less advanced in cosmology, gravity is part of a system we might conceive as "what is", if we fail to see "what is" is not First Cause, because it is only a system of principles, that has no self-existence. We want to say they self-perpetuate, and that may be valid (though I doubt it), but it shows nothing about how that system came to be. First Cause is not a system, that operates by laws. That is mere mechanical fact, which I showed to be illogical, I think.