The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[doubtingmerle]

The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth, it does not say Thor created the heavens and the earth.

Anything else?

The Bible also says a flood covered the whole earth. But this did not happen. So the Bible is sometimes wrong.

Anything else?

 

[anonymous person]

What are your thoughts on Van Inwagen's Big Conjunctive Contingent Fact and it's problems of self reference?

The BCCF is appealed to in discussions on the Leibnizian Cosmological argument and I don't think Inwagen's points present any insurmountable difficulties to Dr. Craig's formulation of the argument.

The Kalam is a different argument than the LCA though. The Kalam concludes to an uncaused cause of the universe, while the LCA concludes to a self-explanatory being. The distinction is often confused even by philosophers.

 

[PapaZoom]

The "clever" parallelism in your reply does not mask the fact they where your interlocutor made a valid critique of an argument (specifically that solving a mystery by apealing to a lager mystery does not actually improve our understanding) your response lacks entirely in substance.

NO, they did not.

 

[Athée]

If when astronauts landed on Mars, they found what appeared to be machine parts and pieces of some sort of spacecraft in one of the Martian caves there, what would we be able to infer from their existence?

We could infer that we had discovered what apears to be machine parts and some sort of spacecraft in a place we would not have expected such. I don't see how this relates to your comment or mine...?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The BCCF is appealed to in discussions on the Leibnizian Cosmological argument and I don't think Inwagen's points present any insurmountable difficulties to Dr. Craig's formulation of the argument.

The Kalam is a different argument than the LCA though. The Kalam concludes to an uncaused cause of the universe, while the LCA concludes to a self-explanatory being. The distinction is often confused even by philosophers.

...so therefore we conclude that everything in the Bible is true? I am still trying to figure out how you got to the point where you decided it was God, not Thor, that created the universe, because ancient shepherds said so in a scientifically inaccurate book. Is that your only evidence? A book written by ancient shepherds? I should be convinced by that?

 

[Athée]

NO, they did not.

I'm confused. What are your negating in that reply?

 

[Athée]

Same.

OK so how do you justify premise 1. Appealing to the fact that things in spacetime which begin to exist have a cause doesn't get us to a cause that predates time (as if that makes any sense). There can be no cause if there is no time, causes are a relationship one thing acting on or to form another, actions take time. Morever why do we assume that the cosmos can be divided into those two categories, things which began to exist and had causes and things which began to exist and don't have causes. How have you justified that second set? What are the members of that second set?

 

[anonymous person]

The Bible also says a flood covered the whole earth. But this did not happen. So the Bible is sometimes wrong.

Do you have an argument for thinking the author of Genesis is necessarily purporting to report a global flood as opposed to one that say, covered the known world at that time? I would love to see it.

In addition, I would love to see your argument that in fact a global flood did not occur.

 

[anonymous person]

We could infer that we had discovered what apears to be machine parts and some sort of spacecraft in a place we would not have expected such. I don't see how this relates to your comment or mine...?

And what would we reasonably infer from their existence? What would we conclude was the explanation for them being there in the cave?

 

[PapaZoom]

I'm confused. What are your negating in that reply?

I made a valid point. He went on a rant. You commended his rant. /explanation

 

[anonymous person]

OK so how do you justify premise 1.

Look here.

Appealing to the fact that things in spacetime which begin to exist have a cause doesn't get us to a cause that predates time (as if that makes any sense).

I never made that claim.

There can be no cause if there is no time, causes are a relationship one thing acting on or to form another, actions take time.

The cause of the universe exists timelessly sans creation and in time subsequent to creation. Problem solved.

Morever why do we assume that the cosmos can be divided into those two categories, things which began to exist and had causes and things which began to exist and don't have causes. How have you justified that second set? What are the members of that second set?

I have no clue what you are talking about here.

If the universe comes into being, it has a cause. The cause would have existed timelessly causally prior (not temporally prior) to the creation of the universe, and in time subsequent to it.

 

[Athée]

And what would we reasonably infer from their existence? What would we conclude was the explanation for them being there in the cave?

I think we could conclude (after some investigation) that some sort of intelligence was responsible. The most likely would be other humans, the less likely would be alien life.

 

[anonymous person]

I think we could conclude (after some investigation) that some sort of intelligence was responsible. The most likely would be other humans, the less likely would be alien life.

Suppose they did not have time to investigate it. Suppose the oxygen was running our of their spacesuits and the astronauts had only several minutes to look over the machinery. Suppose they could only take a picture of it and all we had was a picture of the machine parts. Suppose we knew that these astronauts were the first humans to have landed on Mars and that prior to this, no humans had ever been there.

Would we still be able to reasonably infer using abductive reasoning, that the machinery was the effect of some intelligent life form unknown to us?

 

[Athée]

I made a valid point. He went on a rant. You commended his rant. /explanation

I was responding to your response on his rant, it had nothing to do with your original point, valid or otherwise.

 

[Athée]

Suppose they did not have time to investigate it. Suppose the oxygen was running our of their spacesuits and the astronauts had only several minutes to look over the machinery. Suppose they could only take a picture of it and all we had was a picture of the machine parts. Suppose we knew that these astronauts were the first humans to have landed on Mars and that prior to this, no humans had ever been there.

Would we still be able to reasonably infer using abductive reasoning, that the machinery was the effect of some intelligent life form unknown to us?

I think so, if we recognized it as machinery there must be some features that would lead us to suspect this, features that align well enough with how we view technology for us to see similarities. I think the abduction inference would be intelligence. I don't know how we rule out other humans, some secret program or another but if you want to state that in this thought experiment that no humans were nor could possibly have been there I think alien intelligence is more probable than a natural process.

 

[Athée]

The cause of the universe exists timelessly sans creation and in time subsequent to creation. Problem solved.

How does something exist without time? Does it make sense to say I have a repository of gold bullion with billions that has existed for 0 seconds. Could I use that as collateral for a million dollar loan from you?

If the universe comes into being, it has a cause. The cause would have existed timelessly causally prior (not temporally prior) to the creation of the universe, and in time subsequent to it.

this has the same problem as before what meaning can causally prior have without space time? Causes happen by way of processes or actions both of which require time in which to proceed or act upon the subject. No time....no cause and no causally prior.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you have an argument for thinking the author of Genesis is necessarily purporting to report a global flood as opposed to one that say, covered the known world at that time? I would love to see it.

In addition, I would love to see your argument that in fact a global flood did not occur.

Genesis said the flood destroyed all life, which would have had to cover the whole earth. And we know the earth was not covered with water in human history, because floods leave a distinct layer of debris, and no such layer exists. But that is off topic for this thread.

 

[Athée]

Do you have an argument for thinking the author of Genesis is necessarily purporting to report a global flood as opposed to one that say, covered the known world at that time? I would love to see it.

In addition, I would love to see your argument that in fact a global flood did not occur.

Quick question. ..why did God cause the flood?

 

[Yekcidmij]

The BCCF is appealed to in discussions on the Leibnizian Cosmological argument and I don't think Inwagen's points present any insurmountable difficulties to Dr. Craig's formulation of the argument.

The Kalam is a different argument than the LCA though. The Kalam concludes to an uncaused cause of the universe, while the LCA concludes to a self-explanatory being. The distinction is often confused even by philosophers.

I'm going to have to think about it some more. I see Craig's distinction, though I'm not sure you do.

Van Inwagen's BCCF applies to LCA but maybe not Kalaam because the assumption in Craig's Kalaam is more subdued than Leibniz. Leibniz's PSR applies to statements and propositions whereas Craig's only applies to "whatever comes into existence," so Craig seems to sidestep the BCCF objection. Craig doesn't rely on the extension to propositions (which I think I recall him saying he doesn't believe exist...side story though).

However, Craig's Kalaam clearly is relying on some version of a PSR, so I'm not so sure there isn't a similar objection lurking nearby.

 

[Athée]

Genesis said the flood destroyed all life, which would have had to cover the whole earth. And we know the earth was not covered with water in human history, because floods leave a distinct layer of debris, and no such layer exists. But that is off topic for this thread.

Dang it, I got sucked in too. You are right, the bible says god intended the flood to wipe out all of humanity except Noah et al. Humanity existed across the globe at that point so it couldn't have been a local flood...and as you point out, geology difinitivly proves that there was never a global flood.