The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a creator that is often used by theist. it is most notably used by William Lane Craig. I think this argument is a false argument and I will try to explain why here.
First, what is the argument?
Premise 1: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"
Premise 2: "The universe began to exist"
Conclusion: "The universe has a cause" — Magnus
Numerous problems with your argument:1)We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed.
2)An irreducible cause can have no deeper natural explanation or explain it's own cause.
3)The only logical explanation for the existence of the material universe are non-material supernatural causes.
4)Only supernatural intelligent being can bring non-intelligent material into existence.
5)The only logical conclusion: gods exist. — Hillary
We have not actually found such a cause. — Relativist
A first cause isn't necessarily irreducible — Relativist
Assertion without support: assumes something supernatural actually exists that has the capability to design and produce a universe. Why believe such a complex entity just happens to exist? Why exempt it from requiring cause? — Relativist
Unstated premise that material is brought into existence. An initial state of material reality does not entail being "brought into" existence; it entails no earlier state. — Relativist
The Kalam arguments can not be used to argue in favor of god(s) .
The concept of god isn't mentioned in the premises or the conclusion so not an argument about god....but about the universe and its state of existence. — Nickolasgaspar
At least the arguments are weaker than the Kalam argument, which itself is not fully convincing. — spirit-salamander
-If yo declare it as such...sure. But that is an Observer dependent declaration...not an intrinsic feature of the "cause" necessarily. Again you will need to demonstrate the cause and its nature...not just assume it.An irreducible cause can have no deeper natural explanation or explain it's own cause. — Hillary
In that case, your first premise is based on this unstated premise that a God exists, which makes your argument circular.We have not actually found such a cause. — Relativist
I have. — Hillary
No, because an initial state of affairs can possibly be reducible to distinct, atomic states of affairs.Not neccessarily [irreducible], but in the real world it is, as you will realize how it works. — Hillary
The universe is a natural entity, so clearly doesn't imply anything exists other than the natural.There is support. The existence of the universe. — Hillary
Irrelevant - you seem to be making another unsupported assumption that material objects cannot exist uncaused.Material, even when eternal, cannot have brought itself into existence. — Hillary
How could anything cause itself? If intelligence is needed to cause something, then you require an infinite series of prior causes. An uncaused initial state is coherent.Only eternal intelligences can do that. — Hillary
In that case, your first premise is based on this unstated premise that a God exists, which makes your argument circular. — Relativist
Not neccessarily [irreducible], but in the real world it is, as you will realize how it works.
— Hillary
No, because an initial state of affairs can possibly be reducible to distinct, atomic states of affairs. — Relativist
You also clalm that an irreducible cause can't explain it's own cause, but irreducibility is irrelevant: a first cause is uncaused, and therefore it's logically impossible for there to be a causal explanation for it. To assume other sorts of explanations exist entails another unstated premise requiring support. — Relativist
There is support. The existence of the universe.
— Hillary
The universe is a natural entity, so clearly doesn't imply anything exists other than the natural.
Material, even when eternal, cannot have brought itself into existence.
— Hillary
Irrelevant - you seem to be making another unsupported assumption that material objects cannot exist uncaused.
Only eternal intelligences can do that.
— Hillary
How could anything cause itself? If intelligence is needed to cause something, then you require an infinite series of prior causes. An uncaused initial state is coherent. — Relativist
There is support. The existence of the universe.
— Hillary
The universe is a natural entity, so clearly doesn't imply anything exists other than the natural. — Relativist
An initial state does not entail being "brought into" existence, it entails it existing uncaused and "eternally" - in that there is no time at which it doesn't exist.Material cannot have brought itself into existence, even when eternal. How? What's the physical process behind the emergence of matter? — Hillary
You mentioned it here: " I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods."Let's see. My first statement is:
1)We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed.
No gods mentioned! — Hillary
The infinite chain of cause and effect (serial big bangs) needs outside creatures to be brought into existence (in an infinite past). — Hillary
So your argument is circular.Non-intelligent matter needs eternal intelligences to exist. I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods.
You presented an argument that ostensibly proves there's a God. Your argument is a failure, for all the reasons I stated. If this argument is at all related to your justification for belief, then I conclude your belief in God is irrational. Calling it a "default" doesn't rationally justify holding it as a belief. Personally, I prefer to hold rational beliefs.It's me who should ask evidence for their non-existence.
I don't understand your issue with "matter", as that's not controversial: matter is composed of particles, particles are quanta of quantum fields, which came to exist as our "universe" (i.e. the product of the "big bang" that we examine retrospectively) cooled after the big bang. — Relativist
So your argument is circular. — Relativist
You mentioned it here: " I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods." — Relativist
BTW, I don't subscribe to there being some objective "burden of proof" for a position, but I do believe rationality entails having rational justifications for what we believe — Relativist
That's not a view consistent with Quantum Field Theory, which holds that quantum fields are fundamental, particles are quanta of quantum fields, and "virtual particles" just useful, computational fictions that are used to describe certain behaviors of quantum fields other than particle behavior. See this article. Here's a snippet:Matter consists of real particles that inflated into real existence from virtual particles. — Hillary
Theists are apt to form arguments from ignorance based on the current state of physics, so I don't play that game. As I mentioned, I'm examining this in terms of materialist metaphysics. I defended the notion that the past is finite, and a finite past entails an uncaused first cause, which by definition cannot have a cause - and therefore no causal explanation. If you were to insist it must have a non-causal explanation, then you have the burden to show that non-causal explanations are metaphysically necessary for existence. Or is this just another of your unstated premises that you choose to believe as a "default"? :-)No. Its not circular, as no cause or reason for existence is given by physics. Only gods can do that. The Default State is gods plus the universe they created. . — Hillary
All premises in an argument need to be supported, including unstated premises. I'm not making an argument, so I have no such burden; I'm just critiquing yours.All claims positing that gods don't exist need to prove that claim and by repeating that I must give the proof, the real circular reasoning is exposed.
You're confused. You presented an argument, and if you can't make a case for its soundness then the argument (as presented) is vacuous. You believe in God. I got that, and I have not suggested I can prove your belief false. So what is the point of presenting an argument that you can't defend other than by saying "prove it false (or unsound)?" Is it not obvious that such an argument would persuade no one? So what is the point of presenting it? Why not simply assert "I believe in God. Prove me wrong," since that's essentially what you're doing in a roundabout way?the claim that diverges from the default state needs to prove the claim gods don't exist. I don't have to prove anything within the realm of creation
Your first stated premise is contingent upon the existence of gods. Without that assumption, no one would consider your argument sound. That's my point. I don't have a "default state" about gods (you may be mistaking me with someone else), but I'm pointing out that someone presenting an argument has the burden of arguing for its soundness. If you aren't able to do that, then just admit it.You mentioned it here: " I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods." — Relativist
Yes, but that was not in the five points. Your default state is the universe without gods. Do you have proof? — Hillary
What you just said makes no sense ("ratio"?!). So yes, you can be more rational.BTW, I don't subscribe to there being some objective "burden of proof" for a position, but I do believe rationality entails having rational justifications for what we believe — Relativist
What about the ratio, "reason for existence"? Can I be more rational? — Hillary
That's not a view consistent with Quantum Field Theory, which holds that quantum fields are fundamental, particles are quanta of quantum fields, and "virtual particles" just useful, computational fictions that are used to describe certain behaviors of quantum fields other than particle behavior. See this article. Here's a snippet: — Relativist
What about the ratio, "reason for existence"? Can I be more rational?
— Hillary
What you just said makes no sense ("ratio"?!). So yes, you can be more rational.
1h — Relativist
Theists are apt to form arguments from ignorance — Relativist
I don't have a "default state" about gods — Relativist
After growing up Catholic, and spending years questioning what I'd been taught, I concluded gods don't exist. My default would have been to unquestioningly accept what I was taught, like most theists do.Yes you have. You consider them non existent — Hillary
That's a weird charge. Do you think it's 【u]better[/u] to cling to beliefs irrespective of evidence to the contrary?!just to be safe you say that might evidence show up you believe in them. — Hillary
What do you mean by "default position"? I had assumed you were mirroring atheists who propose that atheism should be assumed as a starting point, but your statement implies you concluded it only after learning about the cosmos, after previously having a contrary or neutral position.I argue from knowledge of the cosmos. I know the workings of the cosmos. And thats the basis of my my default position that next to the cosmos gods exist. — Hillary
After growing up Catholic, and spending years questioning what I'd been taught, I concluded gods don't exist. My default would have been to unquestioningly accept what I was taught, like most theists — Relativist
What do you mean by "default position"? I had assumed you were mirroring atheists who propose that atheism should be assumed as a starting point, but your statement implies you concluded it only after learning about the cosmos, after previously having a contrary or neutral position. — Relativist
In my scientific knowledge there is no gap. — Hillary
That's the god of the gaps fallacy; our scientific theories can't explain X, therefore God(s) explain X. — Michael
In my scientific knowledge there is no gap — Hillary
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.