I know all about the Kalam argument. One of my biggest problems with the argument is that there’s so much background knowledge needed to fully appreciate it. And I’m not saying that to compliment it neither. The argument has no meat to it; (that’s probably why it so appealing to those defending it). IMO, the best way to attack the argument is to expose the philosophical predispositions behind it. And believe me, there is a lot!I have some questions concerning The kalam cosmological argument.
This is the argument I'm working with: — PhilosophyNewbie
I don't know isn't cause pretty self-explanatory?
With cause i mean something that is responsible for something happening.
For example a rock can't move by its own it needs something that caused him to move, like strong wind or a human kicking the stone.
The argument is saying that everything that beginns to exist needs to have something that caused it to do that — PhilosophyNewbie
Yeah, I know there is probably a lot more to consider here but I will try best.
1. so with cause i mean something that is responsible for something happening. (i dont know how to explain it any further)
2. With existing I mean everything material whether that is all the fundamental particles or atoms, depends (where all fundamental particles are included) depending on your view of existing things. But in either case it's all material.
3. I don't really understand what you mean with conception of time. Do you maybe mean that beginning of something needs further explanation because I refer to something where time wasn't even existing?
forgive me if thats just non-sense — PhilosophyNewbie
Well, not always, for example:I don't know isn't cause pretty self-explanatory? — PhilosophyNewbie
I'm responsible for getting my laundry washed. Maybe you have a similar responsibility. If you do, then you know as I know, that responsibility gets nothing done.With cause i mean something that is responsible for something happening. — PhilosophyNewbie
Correct me if I'm wrong but if we grant that there is a cause for the universe, this cause has to have at least some godlike qualities right? — PhilosophyNewbie
in other words: when someone believs god is infinite in order to exclude him from premiss one, why dont we just believe that the universe is infinite, since god proves that its possible — PhilosophyNewbie
with infinite i mean infinite in time. if he is infinite in time, he has no cause. — PhilosophyNewbie
he would have to have some kind of free will and some sort of creative power right? — PhilosophyNewbie
with infinite i mean infinite in time. if he is infinite in time, he has no cause. — PhilosophyNewbie
Correct me if I'm wrong but if we grant that there is a cause for the universe, this cause has to have at least some godlike qualities right? — PhilosophyNewbie
Ok guys Thank you all for showing me that I know very little :)
I really have to read a lot more on this to fully understand the argument.
Would be great if you guys give me some recommendations on what to read.
Thanks! — PhilosophyNewbie
help me out guys im very ignorant on this — PhilosophyNewbie
I see quite a lot of people not having issue with infinite regress as objection to the argument. I know very little but WLC seems to argue that ockhams razor would shave off unnecessary causes? — DoppyTheElv
I see quite a lot of people not having issue with infinite regress as objection to the argument. I know very little but WLC seems to argue that ockhams razor would shave off unnecessary causes? — DoppyTheElv
But while the regress and resulting infinity of natural numbers is arguably unobjectionable, the regress of events seems problematic, because we have good empirical reasons to deny that there are infinitely many events, each preceded by another. For either that infinite sequence of events takes place in a finite amount of time or an infinite one.
I see quite a lot of people not having issue with infinite regress as objection to the argument. I know very little but WLC seems to argue that ockhams razor would shave off unnecessary causes?
Why take infinite regress when the ground state could be necessary and thus uncaused? — DoppyTheElv
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.