The Kalm cosmological argument

[FatalHeart]

There is no end or beginning to that which is universally true. Always means always. Universal truth must always exist, so, time must therefore be infinite. To say truth and concept and logic are all founded on human existence is to state a time under truth and concept and logic in which they did not exist truly, conceptually, and logically. Wherever distinction is created, truth, concept, and logic follow. This is a self-determined principle, for in order for the present to not exist, it must first be presently impossible, and in order for it to be presently impossible, or impossible, really, at any time, that time must exist in which it is impossible. Re-addressed it goes like this: this statement is false. The only way to make the statement false is by first making it true so that it can be false. The statement is therefore never false until it is at first true, and, once true, it is always true because it must remain true in order for it to ever be false. The statement therefore is always true because the power of the lie can only be present if it is true. Once the present exists it becomes an impossible thing, but the only way for it to stay impossible, is for it to always exist, so, also, the impossibility of something is mute if it must first be possible in order to be impossible in the first place. The present, therefore, like the falsehood of that above statement, is possible until it exists and does not become impossible until after it exists, and won’t become impossible after it exists because it has to exist in order to be impossible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have used this phrase "leverages the meaning" several times and I am not quite sure what you mean. What are you trying to say?

That the argument takes a common concept outside of the realm where it finds meaning

What context are you referring to?

The universe.

Cause as used in the argument simply means that the universe has a creative cause. If you will recall, I already went over this in my Apologia.

Aristotle’s tells us there are two types of causes:

1. efficient causes
2. material causes

An efficient cause is something that produces its effect in being; a material cause is the stuff out of which something is made. Michelangelo is the efficient cause the statue David, while the chunk of marble is its material cause.

Therefore Archaeopteryx, when the argument states that the universe has a cause, that simply means that the universe has an efficient cause for its existence.

You accuse me for dishonestly and deceptively modifying this understanding of an efficient cause to include all sorts of exotic qualities that make this particular cause completely unlike any other known cause -- qualities such as spacelessness, timelessness, immateriality, and so on.

But you see sir, this is not so much an objection as it is a complaint. You are complaining that this cause sounds too much like a theistic creator God. But this is not an objection, it is a complaint. The truth is sir, is if you conduct a conceptual analysis of what this "Cause" of the universe MUST be, it MUST be at the very least, non-spatial, timeless, and immaterial. It cannot be anything other than that. I have already explained why this MUST be.

And I have already expounded on my objection to that in your Apologia thread.

You object by saying well this cause would be unlike any other known cause. Well.........okaaaaay.... All you are doing is stating the obvious!

Of course the cause of ALL matter cannot be material.
Of course the cause of ALL space cannot exist in space.
Of course the cause of time must exist outside of time or timelessly.

Then in what sense can we even call it a 'cause'? Our concept of causality is bound up with our thinking about things that exist in space and time. You want to apply that same concept to nothings that exist nowhere and in no time.

Thomas Jefferson put it nicely:

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms.

Incorrect again.

We ascribe these qualities to the cause because that is what they by necessity must be.

You have not shown that to be the case.

The point of the matter is that we do not have to explain how it is possible for the Cause of the universe to be unlike any other cause and still remain causally efficacious.

Of course you do. Otherwise your explanation does no explaining. It's just magic.

This is the objection that Richard Dawkins raised. This again, is not an objection, but a complaint. Why think you should be able to explain how, an immaterial, non-spatial, timeless entity could remain causally efficacious? Just because we cannot explain how this is possible does not mean you eliminate is as an explanation when it is the inference to the best explanation for the data.

Why do I think you should be able to explain how no-thing, no-where and no-when created everything? Because the concept of causality is being used in an exotic way that makes no sense.

If scientists were to actually think the way you are thinking, then it would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, which would completely destroy science. You would never have an explanation for ANYTHING!

Why?

Because for any set of data, you would have to have an explanation of that data. But in order for that explanation to be valid, you would have to have an explanation of that explanation. For that explanation to be valid, you would have to have an explantion of the explanation of the explanation!!!! And so on to infinity!!!!

You are drawing on strawmen. I never asked you for an explanation of your explanation. I am denying that you even have an explanation in the first place. "It happened by magic" is not an explanation.

One does not need to know or explain how the Cause has causal powers in order to recognize that this Cause is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. Once again YOU DO NOT NEED TO HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE EXPLANATION, in order to recognize it as the best explanation. This is fundamental philosophy of science were are dealing with here.

The blanks are not important when determining if God is the best explanation for the existence of the Universe. Once again, you are seeming to insinuate that one must be able to explain completely every detail of an explanation in order for it to be valid. This is wrong wrong wrong and you will have to abandon this way of thinking if you are to engage in serious metaphysics.

You are again presuming that you are the only participant in this discussion to have engaged with any philosophy. This makes you appear pompous, not clever.

I will show you why:

Lets suppose the mars rover thingy is rolling around on mars and suddenly sends video back to the NASA folks of this large metallic sphere with what appears to be engravings and drawings on it sitting in a carved out section of mountain rock. This sphere is hundreds of feet in diameter and is polished so smooth that it looks like a pearl almost.

What do you think the scientific community would say the best explanation for the existence of this sphere was?

I guarantee you at the very least you would have every scientist on TV saying "It is definitely a sign that some extraterrestrial life has been here at one point in time."

They would say that at the very least Archaeopteryx.

They WOULD NOT sit around and twittle their thumbs and say: "Well guys, we simply cannot say that this large polished sphere with engravings and drawings on it is best explained by intelligent extra-terrestrial life. We know nothing about these E.T.s at all! We do not know how they got the equipment to polish this thing, or how they could have drawn and written these things on its surface. Or even how they could have put it in this carved out rock cave!

LOL imagine if they went on world wide TV and gave the following report:

"Men and women of earth, us scientists have come to the conclusion that we simply cannot say that the best explanation for this thing is intelligent extra terrestrial life. The reason is because we know nothing about these E.T.s".....

You see how ridiculous this reasoning would be?

Sir, clearly this large polished sphere with engravings on it is the result of some intelligence. We do not have to know all about the E.T.s to recognize this as the best explanation! But that is what you are suggesting. It simply is wrong thinking. No scientist conducts their research with that mindset.

You've missed the forest for the trees. It would be more analogous to your argument if the scientists concluded that the best explanation was magic. Of course other scientists would then come along and rightly object in saying "Magic? What sort of explanation is that? How does magic, if it exists, cause anything?" To which scientists of your persuasion would reply "You don't need an explanation of magic!"

Yes I have.

Which philosophers would those be?

 

[Elioenai26]

Who promised you that everything about the universe, and its origins, must be appear to be rational and coherent?

Scientists assume that the universe is rationally intelligible. If they did not, then they would have no good reason to trust that their research regarding this rationally intelligible universe corresponded to reality. Incidentally, it was the Judeo Christian View that the universe was the work of a Creator and that this Creator was a rational being who created a rationally intelligible universe which was the foundation of the modern scientific method.

In the second half of this century, historians and philosophers of science have come to realize that the often propagated view that science and theology are opposed in a perpetual warfare is simply a myth. As Thaxton and Pearcey point out in their recent book The Soul of Science,

for over 300 years between the rise of modern science in the 1500’s and the late 1800s the relationship between science and religion can best be described as an alliance and partnership.

Up until the late 19th century, scientists were typically Christian believers who saw no conflict between their science and their faith—people like Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin, and others. The idea of a warfare between science and religion is a relatively recent invention of the late 19th century, carefully nurtured by secular thinkers who had as their aim the undermining of the cultural dominance of Christianity in the West and its replacement by naturalism—the view that nothing outside nature is real and the only way to discover truth is through science.

However, philosophers of science during the second half of the 20th century have come to realize that the idea of a warfare between science and theology is a gross oversimplification.

So it is my Judeo Christian worldview Davian, that promises me that the universe is rational and coherent and intelligible. Just because we have a lack of knowledge regarding certain aspects of the universe does not however mean that it is therefore not rationally intelligible or coherent.

 

[Elioenai26]

Why would that be irrational? To use your words, "it is in the pool of live options" being considered.

I will zoom in on this and highlight the extraordinary lengths one must go to do avoid the theistic implications of the conclusion of the Kalam argument.

In order to avoid the conclusion that the universe has a cause for its existence which necessarily must be supernatural, people would rather believe that the universe created itself.

I think it’s time for somebody to say that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. This view is simply nonsense. Notice what you are not saying. You are not saying that the universe is self-caused in the sense that it has always been there, that it is eternal, and it is self-existent.

No, you are saying the universe began to exist, it came into being, but it created itself. It came into being by creating itself. That is simply nonsense because in order to create itself the universe would have to already exist. It would have to exist before it existed in order to bring itself into existence, which is simply a self-contradiction. So this view is really just logically incoherent. You essentially are saying that the universe would have to exist before it existed, which is a self-contradiction.

It follows that the cause of the universe must be some sort of transcendent cause which is beyond the universe.

Now Archaeopteryx, this is what I meant by saying that atheists who hold this view are EXERCISING EXTREME FAITH by believing that something can bring itself into existence!

If I told you I created myself, that I had no parents, would you think me serious? Or insane?

If I told you that I made myself pop into existence one day as a newborn baby, would you say: "Ahhh, yes, It happens all the time."

I would have had to already exist in order to create myself, but then, if I already existed, there is no bringing of myself into existence, I ALREADY EXIST!

This is simple elementary logic we are dealing with here and for someone to resort to such outlandish self contradictory explanations is just evidence of how strong this argument is.

Now, if you want to believe that then that is fine. But you are exercising way more faith in believing that something that is logically impossible is actually possible, but not only that it is possible but that it actually happened.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I will zoom in on this and highlight the extraordinary lengths one must go to do avoid the theistic implications of the conclusion of the Kalam argument.

In order to avoid the conclusion that the universe has a cause for its existence which necessarily must be supernatural, people would rather believe that the universe created itself.

I didn't say that the universe "created itself".

I think it’s time for somebody to say that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. This view is simply nonsense. Notice what you are not saying. You are not saying that the universe is self-caused in the sense that it has always been there, that it is eternal, and it is self-existent.

Ummm... that isn't what I'm not saying.

No, you are saying the universe began to exist, it came into being, but it created itself. It came into being by creating itself.

Nope.

It follows that the cause of the universe must be some sort of transcendent cause which is beyond the universe.

Such as two branes colliding in hyperspace?

Now Archaeopteryx, this is what I meant by saying that atheists who hold this view are EXERCISING EXTREME FAITH by believing that something can bring itself into existence!

But that is not what is being said.

This is simple elementary logic we are dealing with here and for someone to resort to such outlandish self contradictory explanations is just evidence of how strong this argument is.


Now, if you want to believe that then that is fine. But you are exercising way more faith in believing that something that is logically impossible is actually possible, but not only that it is possible but that it actually happened.

Do they teach logical fallacies in elementary logic? Since that was a strawman.

 

[Elioenai26]

That the argument takes a common concept outside of the realm where it finds meaning

Then you are saying that all of metaphysics is meaningless since it deals with concepts outside of the physical realm.

No serious scientist will agree with this position, and I think you need to understand that you are begging the question for materialism i.e, the view that all that exists is matter. You have a burden of proof simply to great for you to bear here.

The universe.

Once again, you are assuming that all that exists is natural and material. This is question begging for materialism/naturalism.

Then in what sense can we even call it a 'cause'? Our concept of causality is bound up with our thinking about things that exist in space and time.

This is incorrect. For you are begging the question once again for a reductive materialistic view of efficient causes.

My concept of causality is not bound up in my thinking about things that exist in space and time because I know that the Cause of the universe must be non-spatial and timeless. Only a naturalist/materialist holds the view you have.

You are assuming that efficient causes MUST AND CAN ONLY be purely materialistic. This view is definitely not the most commonly held view by philosophers of mind and is definitely not the view that is most consistent and coherent with our own experiences regarding the concept of mind/body.

As long as it is possible that dualism is true, i.e. that mind and matter are two ontologically separate categories, then you MUST CONSIDER that there exists an unembodied mind that has causal powers. Why? Because all the evidence that we have regarding the fundamental nature of the Cause of the universe points to this conclusion.

One must follow the evidence where it leads, and if in order to arrive at the conclusion the evidence provides, one must abandon their materialistic worldview, then you must be intellectually honest enough to concede you are wrong. This is what Anthony Flew did.

In order for your objection to go through, you HAVE TO PROVE THAT REDUCTIVE MATERIALISM is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation for the existence of efficient causes. But you cant prove this.

You want to apply that same concept to nothings that exist nowhere and in no time.

Once again, you are speaking as a reductive materialist. You are begging the question for atheism here. You assume, without justification, that an efficient cause MUST AND CAN ONLY be a material entity. This is materialism.

Thomas Jefferson put it nicely:

Thomas Jefferson was in terms of belief, was inclined toward Deism and the moral philosophy of Christianity, though when he was home he attended the Episcopal church and raised his daughters in that faith.

Thomas even referred to himself as a Christian in a letter to Bejamin Rush. So I do not think you want to be using him as a reference for your views.

His quote is also very similar to what you have been saying all along. That the only thing that exists is matter. But this is materialism which is so obviously self-refuting that it is not even an intellectually tenable position. For to say: "All that exists is matter", is a truth claim that is not made of matter! And therefore, by its own definition is non-existent. A non-existent statement by definition cannot be true or false, it DOES NOT EXIST! So what are you saying?

You have not shown that to be the case.

The modern cosmological and astrophysical evidence points to an absolute beginning to all space all time all matter and all energy. This is modern cosmology and is indisputable.

Therefore, this Cause must be ultramundane.

Of course you do. Otherwise your explanation does no explaining. It's just magic.

Saying that an intelligent being is the efficient cause of the universe is no more magic than saying that Henry Ford was the efficient cause of the Model T.

Why do I think you should be able to explain how no-thing, no-where and no-when created everything? Because the concept of causality is being used in an exotic way that makes no sense.

It does not makes sense to you because you have programmed your mind to work one way, a reductive materialistically way. You will have to abandon that view if you desire to be an intellectually honest young man.

Your views are being proven to you that they are wrong. It is up to you to change them.

You are drawing on strawmen. I never asked you for an explanation of your explanation. I am denying that you even have an explanation in the first place. "It happened by magic" is not an explanation.

You are saying that positing an intelligent efficient cause of the universe is magic. This is because you cannot bring yourself to admit that it is possible that a transcendant being exists. This is willfull reluctance to abandon a materialistic view of reality which is not intellectually honest. If you do, you will have to admit that those CRAZY RELIGIOUS folks have been right all along. This is a matter of pride, not evidence.

You are again presuming that you are the only participant in this discussion to have engaged with any philosophy.

Not at all.

You've missed the forest for the trees. It would be more analogous to your argument if the scientists concluded that the best explanation was magic. Of course other scientists would then come along and rightly object in saying "Magic? What sort of explanation is that? How does magic, if it exists, cause anything?" To which scientists of your persuasion would reply "You don't need an explanation of magic!"

You speak about a transcendant creator as "magic" because this creator is not a material entity as you wrongly assume IT MUST BE. Materialism is riddled with problems and is as I have already demonstrated, not tenable.

You are at a crossroads. You can honestly examine your BELIEFS and admit you are wrong, or continue to DOGMATICALLY hold to them even though you know they are false.

You sound remarkably like Thomas Nagel when he said:

“In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”(”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)”
― Thomas Nagel

Is that you Archaeopteryx? Are you willing to deny what is so obvious in order to maintain your godless view of the universe?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then you are saying that all of metaphysics is meaningless since it deals with concepts outside of the physical realm.

No, that is not what I am saying.

No serious scientist will agree with this position, and I think you need to understand that you are begging the question for materialism i.e, the view that all that exists is matter. You have a burden of proof simply to great for you to bear here.

I think you are mistaking where the burden of proof lies. You insist that there are supernatural, immaterial 'things', but to date you refuse to answer my question regarding how we are able to obtain knowledge about such things.

Once again, you are assuming that all that exists is natural and material. This is question begging for materialism/naturalism.

See above.

This is incorrect. For you are begging the question once again for a reductive materialistic view of efficient causes.

See above.

My concept of causality is not bound up in my thinking about things that exist in space and time because I know that the Cause of the universe must be non-spatial and timeless. Only a naturalist/materialist holds the view you have.

How does one make sense of a cause that doesn't exist in space or in time?

As long as it is possible that dualism is true, i.e. that mind and matter are two ontologically separate categories, then you MUST CONSIDER that there exists an unembodied mind that has causal powers. Why? Because all the evidence that we have regarding the fundamental nature of the Cause of the universe points to this conclusion.

I must consider it? Why?

The very notion of a disembodied mind sounds nonsensical.

In order for your objection to go through, you HAVE TO PROVE THAT REDUCTIVE MATERIALISM is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation for the existence of efficient causes. But you cant prove this.

I can't prove X so dualism is true? You are confusing where the burden of proof lies.

Once again, you are speaking as a reductive materialist. You are begging the question for atheism here. You assume, without justification, that an efficient cause MUST AND CAN ONLY be a material entity. This is materialism.

The burden of proof - YouTube

Thomas Jefferson was in terms of belief, was inclined toward Deism and the moral philosophy of Christianity, though when he was home he attended the Episcopal church and raised his daughters in that faith.

Thomas even referred to himself as a Christian in a letter to Bejamin Rush. So I do not think you want to be using him as a reference for your views.

You've ignored the point he was making.

His quote is also very similar to what you have been saying all along. That the only thing that exists is matter. But this is materialism which is so obviously self-refuting that it is not even an intellectually tenable position. For to say: "All that exists is matter", is a truth claim that is not made of matter! And therefore, by its own definition is non-existent. A non-existent statement by definition cannot be true or false, it DOES NOT EXIST! So what are you saying?

Physicalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The modern cosmological and astrophysical evidence points to an absolute beginning to all space all time all matter and all energy. This is modern cosmology and is indisputable.

It points to a beginning, not to a deity.

Saying that an intelligent being is the efficient cause of the universe is no more magic than saying that Henry Ford was the efficient cause of the Model T.

Except that Henry Ford isn't immaterial, space-less or timeless.

It does not makes sense to you because you have programmed your mind to work one way, a reductive materialistically way. You will have to abandon that view if you desire to be an intellectually honest young man.

You will have to eat your broccoli if you want ice-cream after dinner!

You are saying that positing an intelligent efficient cause of the universe is magic. This is because you cannot bring yourself to admit that it is possible that a transcendant being exists.

I never denied that it was possible.

This is willfull reluctance to abandon a materialistic view of reality which is not intellectually honest. If you do, you will have to admit that those CRAZY RELIGIOUS folks have been right all along.

I was once one of those religious folk.

Are you accusing me of intellectual dishonesty?

This is a matter of pride, not evidence.

It's not my pride that is at stake here.

You speak about a transcendant creator as "magic" because this creator is not a material entity as you wrongly assume IT MUST BE. Materialism is riddled with problems and is as I have already demonstrated, not tenable.

You've demonstrated your misconceptions regarding materialism, nothing more.

You are at a crossroads. You can honestly examine your BELIEFS and admit you are wrong, or continue to DOGMATICALLY hold to them even though you know they are false.

You are projecting your own dogmatism onto others. I am willing to be convinced that supernatural entities exist. I just don't find any of the arguments presented thus far convincing.

You sound remarkably like Thomas Nagel when he said:

“In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”(”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)”

I haven't said anything like what Nagel has said. See above.

Is that you Archaeopteryx? Are you willing to deny what is so obvious in order to maintain your godless view of the universe?

What exactly do you think is "so obvious" in your case?

 

[KCfromNC]

Then you are saying that all of metaphysics is meaningless since it deals with concepts outside of the physical realm.

Is he now?

Once again, you are assuming that all that exists is natural and material. This is question begging for materialism/naturalism.

It's more a tentative working conclusion. Do you have any reason we should doubt it? Because it seems that naturalism works pretty well at figuring things out about reality, and supernaturalism and magic don't seem to add much to that picture.

This is incorrect. For you are begging the question once again for a reductive materialistic view of efficient causes.

My concept of causality is not bound up in my thinking about things that exist in space and time because I know that the Cause of the universe must be non-spatial and timeless.

Why assume it had any cause at all, much less a "Cause"? Seems like you're just assuming your conclusions here and then whining that everyone else isn't doing the same.

You are assuming that efficient causes MUST AND CAN ONLY be purely materialistic.

Nope, he's saying that all the causes we've ever observed are here in our natural universe. If you want to go off and make up stuff about "causes" outside of that experience, good for you. Just don't pretend you can use anything we've learned about natural causes of things here in the universe and apply them to magical supernatural "Causes" outside of the known universe. There's simply no way to go from one to the the other.

This view is definitely not the most commonly held view by philosophers of mind and is definitely not the view that is most consistent and coherent with our own experiences regarding the concept of mind/body.

So you're trying to bring in magical soul powers to back up your idea of magical supernatural creator powers? Talk about multiplying entities unnecessarily. Let me know when you want to discuss how the Illuminati and Underpants Gnomes were involved as well.

As long as it is possible that dualism is true, i.e. that mind and matter are two ontologically separate categories, then you MUST CONSIDER that there exists an unembodied mind that has causal powers.

It has been considered, and after considering it, there's no reason to think it corresponds to reality.

One must follow the evidence where it leads, and if in order to arrive at the conclusion the evidence provides, one must abandon their materialistic worldview, then you must be intellectually honest enough to concede you are wrong.

If there were evidence, you wouldn't be resorting to a magical spirit-world to defend your views.

Once again, you are speaking as a reductive materialist. You are begging the question for atheism here. You assume, without justification, that an efficient cause MUST AND CAN ONLY be a material entity. This is materialism.

I can't believe you honestly don't understand why someone would look at the natural universe and think that causes, as we understand them, are natural. That's all we observe. Get back to use when you observe a disembodied supernatural mind create a universe - at least then we'd have something to go on other than guesswork about what happens in magical soul-land.

But this is materialism which is so obviously self-refuting that it is not even an intellectually tenable position. For to say: "All that exists is matter", is a truth claim that is not made of matter!

Huh? The letters look pretty material to me, and they're products of a physical brain doing physical things. No magic needed.

The modern cosmological and astrophysical evidence points to an absolute beginning to all space all time all matter and all energy.

You've been corrected on this before. Not sure if you don't understand it or are being intentionally misleading. The big bang is the start of our universe, not necessarily the start of everything.

Saying that an intelligent being is the efficient cause of the universe is no more magic than saying that Henry Ford was the efficient cause of the Model T.

Wait, just how old do you think Henry Ford was - any evidence of humans predating the Big Bang you'd like to present? If not, then the two claims have very little to do with each other.

It does not makes sense to you because you have programmed your mind to work one way, a reductive materialistically way. You will have to abandon that view if you desire to be an intellectually honest young man.

Personal attacks are against the rules on this forum, I'd imagine.

You are saying that positing an intelligent efficient cause of the universe is magic. This is because you cannot bring yourself to admit that it is possible that a transcendant being exists.

If that's what you think the reason is, you're not paying attention.

You speak about a transcendant creator as "magic" because this creator is not a material entity as you wrongly assume IT MUST BE.

What other non-physical supernatural creation events have we observed? You can't exactly pretend that what you're describing here has anything to do with what we actually see happening here in the universe, which makes it quite a flight of fancy to get from here to there.

You are at a crossroads. You can honestly examine your BELIEFS and admit you are wrong, or continue to DOGMATICALLY hold to them even though you know they are false.

Ohhh, you used all caps. That must mean it is true.

Are you willing to deny what is so obvious in order to maintain your godless view of the universe?

Nice preaching. Too bad you have to fall back on this since you've got nothing concrete to present. I know desperation when I see it.

 

[Ripheus27]

The modern cosmological and astrophysical evidence points to an absolute beginning to all space all time all matter and all energy. This is modern cosmology and is indisputable.

This is almost a lie, sir, and you're not uneducated so you should very well know this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Nope, he's saying that all the causes we've ever observed are here in our natural universe. If you want to go off and make up stuff about "causes" outside of that experience, good for you. Just don't pretend you can use anything we've learned about natural causes of things here in the universe and apply them to magical supernatural "Causes" outside of the known universe. There's simply no way to go from one to the the other

That is exactly what I mean when I say that the cosmological argument excises the concept 'cause' from the very context in which it finds meaning and then applies it to an unfamiliar territory. Not only is the territory unfamiliar, it is also (conveniently enough) untested and perhaps untestable. The proponent of the argument will insist that his usage of the concept 'cause' is cogent, but I see no reason to take the proponent's confidence on faith.

This criticism need not fall on the cosmological argument alone. Someone who argues that supernatural entities 'cause' disease might face a similar objection to their use of the concept 'cause'. Whenever we do not have a clue what the cause of some phenomena is the theist conveniently pushes God into the gap. I believe that Hawisher was touching on a similar point with the Argument from Squirrels:

An atheist, being exposed to the Argument from Morality by a Christian who seeks to convert him, cannot reasonably be expected to take on faith any part of the argument whatsoever. That is not just putting the cart before the horse; that is insisting that the cart, being in front of the horse, should now proceed to tow the horse to its destination. ...

Many will take this as an attack on the Christian faith; I assure you, it is not. Though God reveals himself in many ways (and I do not dispute that one of these ways is moral objectivity) it is unreasonable to expect moral objectivity to, by mere virtue of being God-given, be a workable argument for God. After all, God gave us squirrels, did he not? If you truly believe that any way in which God reveals himself is a workable argument for His existence, then go and preach the Argument from Squirrels. If you are successful, then you never needed the Argument from Morality in the first place. If not, I suspect you will have learned a valuable lesson about the nature of apologetics.

 

[Davian]

Who promised you that everything about the universe, and its origins, must be appear to be rational and coherent?

Scientists assume that the universe is rationally intelligible.

Of course. Science must make assumptions, subject to future falsification and revision.

If they did not, then they would have no good reason to trust that their research regarding this rationally intelligible universe corresponded to reality.

I was not speaking of just the universe, but of its origins.

I am not presupposing that it is 'rationally intelligible' like you appear to be. Is it "rationally intelligible" to presume that the object that I refer to as a 'table' is actually mostly empty space?

Incidentally, it was the Judeo Christian View that the universe was the work of a Creator and that this Creator was a rational being who created a rationally intelligible universe which was the foundation of the modern scientific method.

Or not.

"The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself. Ancient Egyptian documents describe empirical methods in astronomy,[99] mathematics,[100] and medicine.[101] The ancient Greek philosopher Thales in the 6th century BC refused to accept supernatural, religious or mythological explanations for natural phenomena, proclaiming that every event had a natural cause. The development of deductive reasoning by Plato was an important step towards the scientific method. Empiricism seems to have been formalized by Aristotle, who believed that universal truths could be reached via induction."

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the second half of this century, historians and philosophers of science have come to realize that the often propagated view that science and theology are opposed in a perpetual warfare is simply a myth. As Thaxton and Pearcey point out in their recent book The Soul of Science,

for over 300 years between the rise of modern science in the 1500’s and the late 1800s the relationship between science and religion can best be described as an alliance and partnership.

'Religion' still being 'religion', and not 'reality'.

Up until the late 19th century, scientists were typically Christian believers who saw no conflict between their science and their faith—people like Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin, and others.

They were also typically men that wore pants, and presumably did not see a conflict with that.

The idea of a warfare between science and religion is a relatively recent invention of the late 19th century, carefully nurtured by secular thinkers who had as their aim the undermining of the cultural dominance of Christianity in the West and its replacement by naturalism—the view that nothing outside nature is real and the only way to discover truth is through science.

And according to science, of what significance is "God" and "supernatural?

However, philosophers of science during the second half of the 20th century have come to realize that the idea of a warfare between science and theology is a gross oversimplification.

You mean, it was like theology was bringing a knife to a gunfight?

So it is my Judeo Christian worldview Davian, that promises me that the universe is rational and coherent and intelligible. Just because we have a lack of knowledge regarding certain aspects of the universe does not however mean that it is therefore not rationally intelligible or coherent.

So what do you think the holdup is with establishing the "theory of everything", seeing that we (well, you) have this promise of "rationally intelligible"?

It would appear that your promise of "rationally intelligible" is broken. You don't actually have the "truth", do you?

Speaking of science, you missed my question earlier: Are you a global floodist?

 

[WilbertK]

I appreciate it so much man, and hey, I've always wanted to vist the Netherlands!

Please don't only go to Amsterdam.

Let's see if I understand you correctly. The fact that the US are now at war with Afghanistan is a tensed fact. The fact that that the US were at war with Afghanistan in 2012 is not.

Apparently it doesn't matter that tensed facts can be rephrased as tenseless facts. So, your definition of 'beginning to exist' includes everything that COULD be phrases in such a way as to be a tensed fact, right? Because everything that is a tensed fact at time t could be rephrased as a tenseless fact by saying "at time t, ...".

Initially I was under the impression that you were arguing that there were tensed facts that can NOT be rephrased as tenseless facts. I meant to ask you an example of that. If you do indeed think that there exist tensed facts that cannot possibly be made tenseless, then could you please give me an example of one of those?

 

[Elioenai26]

Of course. Science must make assumptions, subject to future falsification and revision.

This is correct. However, Thus far we have no good reason to doubt the rational intelligibility of our universe. We have no good reason to revise this position nor do I or any scientist forsee this position being falsified in the near future. It is possible that we are all just deceived into thinking that our universe is rationally intelligible, but highly unlikely given our uniform experience that it is.

I was not speaking of just the universe, but of its origins.

In order to even get to the question of origins, scientists must work backward through time, all the while assuming that the universe has always been rationally intelligible as they conduct their studies and research until they reach the point where science must be abandoned and metaphysics and other disciplines such as theology and philosophy can be used to make rational, reasonable conclusions regarding the question of origins.

I am not presupposing that it is 'rationally intelligible' like you appear to be.

Are you referring to origins or the universe?

Is it "rationally intelligible" to presume that the object that I refer to as a 'table' is actually mostly empty space?

You are using the word intelligible here in an inaccurate context. It would be more accurate for you to simply ask: "Is it rational to presume that the object that I refer to as a table is actually mostly empty space?"

To that I would be kind of confused as to why you would come to that conclusion. Why not just say the object that you perceive to be a table is a table.

Or not.

I said MODERN scientific method, not science. There is a huge difference.

'Religion' still being 'religion', and not 'reality'.

I have never argued that 'religion is reality'. So that is kind of strawmanish.

And according to science, of what significance is "God" and "supernatural?

Science says nothing. Scientists are the ones who say God is significant to scientific discourse.

List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are hundreds of scientists, many of them were leading thinkers, are leading thinkers of their respective times. The list is by no means exhaustive. Take a look at em. Especially the ones who are contemporary. Men like Francis Collins former Director of the Human Genome Research Institute, or Antonio Zichichi a nuclear physicist and President of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare. Several are Nobel Prize winners in their respective fields.

ALL OF THEM think God is more than significant to scientific discourse. And this page is just on CHRISTIAN scientific thinkers, that is not to mention of course ever other scientist who holds to some form of theism. There are thousands of scientists who see God as being significant to scientific discourse.

1. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
   Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
2. Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
   Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
3. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
   Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled
4. Rene Descartes (1596-1650)Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
5. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
   
   
   Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."
6. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
   In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
7. Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
   One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
8. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
9. Max Planck (1858-1947)
   Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
10. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
    Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So what do you think the holdup is with establishing the "theory of everything", seeing that we (well, you) have this promise of "rationally intelligible"?

Science will progress only as fast as human capacities will allow. I do not see it as a holdup. I see it as continual progression towards ever increasing knowledge of our universe.

It would appear that your promise of "rationally intelligible" is broken. You don't actually have the "truth", do you?

Where did this come from?

Speaking of science, you missed my question earlier: Are you a global floodist?

The Genesis accounts are of such a nature that they can be interpreted in one of two ways. Either the flood was global as in the whole earth was flooded, or either it was a localized flood and the biblical author described it according to his relative position in the flood. Either view has potential pros and cons. I am open to both.http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...11189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=1576830160

 

[Davian]

This is correct. Thus far we have no good reason to doubt the rational intelligibility of our universe.

For whom do you speak?

We have no good reason to revise this position nor do I or any scientist forsee this position being falsified in the near future.

It already has been falsified. Quantum mechanics, anyone?

But then, you are on record as not being sure if there was a global flood or not.

It is possible that we are all just deceived into thinking that our universe is rationally intelligible, but highly unlikely given our uniform experience that it is.

And what experience do "we" have of the beginnings of universes that you base this assertion on?

In order to even get to the question of origins, scientists must work backward through time, all the while assuming that the universe has always been rationally intelligible as they conduct their studies and research until they reach the point where science must be abandoned and metaphysics and other disciplines such as theology and philosophy can be used to make rational, reasonable conclusions regarding the question of origins.

And of what value are these unfalsifiable conclusions?

Are you referring to origins or the universe?

Yes.

You are using the word intelligible here in an inaccurate context. It would be more accurate for you to simply ask: "Is it rational to presume that the object that I refer to as a table is actually mostly empty space?"

That is what I am asking. Is it?

To that I would be kind of confused as to why you would come to that conclusion. Why not just say the object that you perceive to be a table is a table.

I was not referring to the table, but to its properties.

I said MODERN scientific method, not science. There is a huge difference.

No, you said "FOUNDATION of the modern scientific method".

(Oooh. All Caps. I have to try that more!)

I have never argued that 'religion is reality'. So that is kind of strawmanish.

I never said you did. I do find it interesting that we, as a society, have two distinctly different words for 'religion' and 'reality'. There is hope for us yet.

Science says nothing. Scientists are the ones who say God is significant to scientific discourse.

List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are hundreds of scientists, many of them were leading thinkers, are leading thinkers of their respective times. The list is by no means exhaustive. Take a look at em. Especially the ones who are contemporary. Men like Francis Collins former Director of the Human Genome Research Institute, or Antonio Zichichi a nuclear physicist and President of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare. Several are Nobel Prize winners in their respective fields.

ALL OF THEM think God is more than significant to scientific discourse. And this page is just on CHRISTIAN scientific thinkers, that is not to mention of course ever other scientist who holds to some form of theism. There are thousands of scientists who see God as being significant to scientific discourse.

Of these thousands, can you name one that can show "God" to be of scientific significance?

Science will progress only as fast as human capacities will allow. I do not see it as a holdup. I see it as continual progression towards ever increasing knowledge of our universe.

So what is the holdup, if this universe is so 'rationally intelligible'? What's taking them so long?

Where did this come from?

The Genesis accounts are of such a nature that they can be interpreted in one of two ways. Either the flood was global as in the whole earth was flooded, or either it was a localized flood and the biblical author described it according to his relative position in the flood. Either view has potential pros and cons and I am open to both.

You are the one preaching that he has 'the truth'

 

[KCfromNC]

ALL OF THEM think God is more than significant to scientific discourse.

But since they can't even agree amongst themselves what God is, how reliable is their testimony? After all, you have Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, claimed Christians who wouldn't be allowed to post in the "Christians-only" forums here, a culturally Jewish sorta-pantheist, and who knows what else in your list of reliable witnesses. If these are your "reliable" sources of what sort of god created the universe, you can understand if we're not exactly convinced.

Tell you what - you get all of the religious folks to agree on which sort of creator god did the work and get back to us with the consensus. Until then, it looks like you're just grasping at anyone who uses the word god in any sense as evidence for - well, for something.

I won't even get into the problem that your list was plagiarized and is likely a copyright violation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But since they can't even agree amongst themselves what God is, how reliable is their testimony? After all, you have Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, claimed Christians who wouldn't be allowed to post in the "Christians-only" forums here, a culturally Jewish sorta-pantheist, and who knows what else in your list of reliable witnesses. If these are your "reliable" sources of what sort of god created the universe, you can understand if we're not exactly convinced.

Tell you what - you get all of the religious folks to agree on which sort of creator god did the work and get back to us with the consensus. Until then, it looks like you're just grasping at anyone who uses the word god in any sense as evidence for - well, for something.

I won't even get into the problem that your list was plagiarized and is likely a copyright violation.

The last name on that list is interesting, considering that Einstein did not share belief in the personal God that religious apologists seek to defend. Dawkins makes a point of noting the difference between Einsteinian religion and supernatural religion. The former does not use the word 'God' in the same sense as the latter.

 

[KCfromNC]

The last name on that list is interesting, considering that Einstein did not share belief in the personal God that religious apologists seek to defend. Dawkins makes a point of noting the difference between Einsteinian religion and supernatural religion. The former does not use the word 'God' in the same sense as the latter.

Newton also kept his unitarian religious views secret, since they were way out of line with what the church was teaching. It's not quite as big a gap as the one between Einstein's views and a Christian creator god(" I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."). But it still points out that these scientists' views of god are not coming from scientific investigation, but rather personal revelation - and we know that's pretty much indistinguishable from guessing, even when it is done by people who also do science.

 

[WilbertK]

I urge you all to open your own threads to start your own discussions. I have my own reasons for opening this thread, and I hate to see it steer this far off topic. All the spin-off may be interesting, but if you think it's worth discussing, please start your own threads. This thread is about the Kalām, not about which scientist is christian.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why does our universe present us with this particular set of physical constants and quantities rather than some other set of physical constants and quantities?

If they were different as to exclude the possibility of life, who would be here to notice?

What you are citing is a detection bias.

Your entire argument boils down to a God-of-the-Gaps and various other fallacies (e.g. argument from incredulity, strawman). First, you claim that we are ignorant of how universes come about, which is a fair assessment of the science right now. You then claim that since we do not know how universes come about then it universes have to be brought about by deities (especialy the one you believe in). Even more, you insert a false position (i.e. strawman) into this gap in our knowledge claiming that universes can only come about by bringing themselves into existence. You then throw another fallacy on top for good measure by being incredulous that natural mechanisms can produce universes, as if reality is limited to what you are capable of believing or not believing.

This is why you arguments fail so spectacularly.

 

[Crandaddy]

I expected to find people on these forums who find the Kalām cosmological argument compelling. What I didn't expect to find were people who claim to have never seen it refuted. That's why I'm wondering if my idea of its refutation is sound, or whether I'm missing something.

I'm most familiar with the argument in the form in which William Lane Craig presents it:
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.

If you have a better version of it, I would like to hear it. For now, I'm going with this one.

The first objection I have is to the phrase 'begins to exist'. It appears in premise 1, to establish, presumably by appeal to common sense, or everyday experience, that things have causes. It then appears in premise 2 to say that the universe had a beginning. If we were to grant premise 2, this would mean that we were to grant that the universe was created out of nothing. Not by some rearrangement of previously existing stuff. If we use the phrase 'begin to exist' to describe such an event, it seems fair to use it in the same way in premise 1. Because if we use the same label for two different things, we would be equivocating, and our conclusion wouldn't follow from the premises.

But if we try to look for other instances of stuff appearing out of nothing, without rearranging previously existing matter, the list comes up rather short. We could talk about virtual particles, but those are a concept from quantum mechanics, and can appear out of nothing without cause. Nothing that we've ever observed can be said to 'begin to exist' in the sense that the universe did. If it did.

So, to summarize: I would like to know what it means for something to 'begin to exist', before seeing if it's reasonable to grant any of the two premises of the argument. Can anybody help me out?

How 'bout this:

For any singular concrete individual, set of concrete individuals, or mereological sum of concrete individuals x: x has a temporal beginning iff (if and only if) x's past temporal duration is finitely divisible into parts of constant duration.

I might add, by the way (and just for good measure), that I have some difficulties with WLC's philosophical support for premise 2 of Kalam.