Kalam argument does not prove God, is almost useless and Atheists like it?

[Link]

Salam

It proves a Creator. It doesn't say he is One or Ultimate. So how useful is it?

I would say it would useful to get an atheist going on the journey. But it's so dry, and absurdities can be branched out of it's two central arguments, and so much conjecture can be made in the name of "science" on each or "math" or whatever, that neither infinite regress being impossible nor eternal nature of first cause is really grasped by most, so instead, people begin to conjecture a lot. And it looks prettier if you mention physics in the theory and give it more scientific flavor no matter how absurd it is.

Perhaps the Quran for best reasons, made us think of originator:

"Are they created from nothing?
Or are they the creators?
"Alas! They are not sure"

It left it at they are not sure. So perhaps the Quran is telling us this is not that useful of a reflection because the people don't grasp which one of these is true. They don't have certainty into these things.

It might be counter intuitive, but reflections over God's Oneness are BETTER.

Mainly:

We ARE CERTAIN of WHAT AND WHO WE ARE. This is THE FOUNDATION TO WORK WITH.

This is the foundation, we know we aren't an illusion.

Without God's vision, though, can we be who and what we are?

This process of "And signs in themselves, will they not see?", is more central in Quran, for a reason. Signs such as descent of God's aspects into us is more useful.

The other thing is with an absolute source, there would be no moral foundation and no way to guidance.

God accounts all souls.

These reflections are better, because they make us see God through signs of who and what we are.

That we are linked to the eternal and absolute source.

God witnessing us and us relying on his witnessing vision, this is yields more certainty, and brings God and the soul link to direct view.

 

[ChristineM]

It proves a Creator. It doesn't say he is One or Ultimate.

The Kalam cosmological argument is based on an 2 assertions for which there is no knowledge therefore it guesses.

We can all guess

 

[paradox]

The Kalam cosmological argument is based on an 2 assertions for which there is no knowledge therefore it guesses.

which 2 assertions?

 

[ChristineM]

which 2 assertions?

Whatever begins to exist had a cause - unknown, as yet we cannot know what happened before the bb or even before Planck time 0->10e-43 of a second after the bb.

The universe began to exist - unknown, it is not know how the universe began, it may have always existed, it may be cyclic, or back to the first point, it may be uncaused.

 

[paradox]

Whatever begins to exist had a cause - unknown, as yet we cannot know what happened before the bb or even before Planck time 0->10e-43 of a second after the bb.

But should BB be taken for granted? there have been numerous other theories in the past before BB and there will likely be new theories in the future.

One issue which I have with BB is that putting all this vast universe into a smaller than atom place (called singularity) sounds ridiculous.
But even if that's taken as true BB doesn't disprove unmoved mover:
Unmoved mover - Wikipedia

 

[vulcanlogician]

It's head and shoulders above the ontological argument, so it has that going for it.

My philosophy of religion professor lectured on it one day. I think he did a good job of putting it charitably.... he spent some 10 or so minutes focusing on its merits. There's something to it: namely, it's nearly impossible for us to conceive of a causeless cause. It's really fishy to bring God in as a solid answer to this concern, yes. But, at the same time, if the Kalam argument does anything, it shows us that the theories we have are insufficient to explain existence.

PS: The "free lunch" hypothesis doesn't do the trick. If true, those hypotheses may adequately explain why the universe is here, but they don't explain what caused those "free lunch" conditions in the first place.

 

[paradox]

PS: The "free lunch" hypothesis doesn't do the trick. If true, those hypotheses may adequately explain why the universe is here, but they don't explain what caused those "free lunch" conditions in the first place.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch - Wikipedia

This is similar to "nothing comes from nothing":
Nothing comes from nothing - Wikipedia

But isn't this two fold?
1.) something exists eternally (ex. matter), which leads back to first cause issue
2.) universe was caused

 

[ChristineM]

But should BB be taken for granted? there have been numerous other theories in the past before BB and there will likely be new theories in the future.

One issue which I have with BB is that putting all this vast universe into a smaller than atom place (called singularity) sounds ridiculous.
But even if that's taken as true BB doesn't disprove unmoved mover:
Unmoved mover - Wikipedia

No, the bb is an assumption based on intapolation of observed data.

Of course it sounds ridiculous, if it was as suggested then it was before logic in our universe coalesced. You cannot apply current logic to what may have been a completely different set of rules.

For the same reason it does not prove an unmoved mover.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

PS: The "free lunch" hypothesis doesn't do the trick. If true, those hypotheses may adequately explain why the universe is here, but they don't explain what caused those "free lunch" conditions in the first place.

A huge problem with this issue is that all logical possibilities we can conceive of involve either something existing infinitely back in time (oscillating universe, multiverse, deity) or something arising from nothing. That is, either there always was something and reality has no first moment, or that something appeared from nothing. They're both highly counterintuitive. Each seems impossible, yet it seems that one must be the case. Therefore, looking at one of these in isolation and declaring it impossible isn't an adequate criticism when what's left seems equally impossible.

It proves a Creator. It doesn't say he is One or Ultimate. So how useful is it? I would say it would useful to get an atheist going on the journey. But it's so dry, and absurdities can be branched out of it's two central arguments, and so much conjecture can be made in the name of "science" on each or "math" or whatever, that neither infinite regress being impossible nor eternal nature of first cause is really grasped by most, so instead, people begin to conjecture a lot. And it looks prettier if you mention physics in the theory and give it more scientific flavor no matter how absurd it is.

It's useful to get an atheist going on what journey? The journey to theism? Not really. You say that the argument proves a creator. Disagree. The KCA proves nothing, because it is flawed in two ways - it's unshared premise about the universe having a cause or a first moment, and the fallacious reasoning (non sequitur) that unsoundly concludes "therefore God."

What are you calling dry? The argument? Its refutation? They're both too simple to be dry.

So you think that physics is inappropriate in a discussion of the origin if any of the universe? Is that what you meant by dry - discussing hypotheses other than a god hypothesis?

If I understood you correctly, you used the word absurd to describe alternate origins hypotheses for the universe not involving gods. That's you doing what I just described to vulcanologician. I see four logical possibilities: the universe has no cause because it either [1] always existed or [2] came into being uncaused, or the universe was caused by a prior substance which might be [3] conscious (deity) or [4] unconscious (such as a multiverse), and which itself has a prior cause or has always existed.

None of these is palatable. All are counterintuitive. They all seem impossible, yet, doesn't one of them have to be the case? You've chosen one, but don't see that it is as absurd as the others, and less parsimonious to boot, as it requires the existence of a deity going endlessly back in time, or accepting the incoherent claim that it lives outside of time or created time. What is less likely to exist undesigned or uncreated than a deity, and what does it mean to think or create outside of time, both activities requiring a before and after state and thus the passage of time for change to occur.

The theist typically simply dismisses these other possibilities out of hand as you have done with a word: absurd. The critical thinker does not, which is why he finds the argument flawed and unconvincing.

 

[paradox]

it's unshared premise about the universe having a cause or a first moment

what do you mean by "unshared"?

 

[Link]

A huge problem with this issue is that all logical possibilities we can conceive of involve either something existing infinitely back in time (oscillating universe, multiverse, deity) or something arising from nothing. That is, either there always was something and reality has no first moment, or that something appeared from nothing. They're both highly counterintuitive. Each seems impossible, yet it seems that one must be the case. Therefore, looking at one of these in isolation and declaring it impossible isn't an adequate criticism when what's left seems equally impossible.



It's useful to get an atheist going on what journey? The journey to theism? Not really. You say that the argument proves a creator. Disagree. The KCA proves nothing, because it is flawed in two ways - it's unshared premise about the universe having a cause or a first moment, and the fallacious reasoning (non sequitur) that unsoundly concludes "therefore God."

What are you calling dry? The argument? Its refutation? They're both too simple to be dry.

So you think that physics is inappropriate in a discussion of the origin if any of the universe? Is that what you meant by dry - discussing hypotheses other than a god hypothesis?

If I understood you correctly, you used the word absurd to describe alternate origins hypotheses for the universe not involving gods. That's you doing what I just described to vulcanologician. I see four logical possibilities: the universe has no cause because it either [1] always existed or [2] came into being uncaused, or the universe was caused by a prior substance which might be [3] conscious (deity) or [4] unconscious (such as a multiverse), and which itself has a prior cause or has always existed.

None of these is palatable. All are counterintuitive. They all seem impossible, yet, doesn't one of them have to be the case? You've chosen one, but don't see that it is as absurd as the others, and less parsimonious to boot, as it requires the existence of a deity going endlessly back in time, or accepting the incoherent claim that it lives outside of time or created time. What is less likely to exist undesigned or uncreated than a deity, and what does it mean to think or create outside of time, both activities requiring a before and after state and thus the passage of time for change to occur.

The theist typically simply dismisses these other possibilities out of hand as you have done with a word: absurd. The critical thinker does not, which is why he finds the argument flawed and unconvincing.

I'm saying though it should lead to prove a Creator, it gives an atheist an equal footing when he conjectures and makes it sound smart. Don't worry, Sunnis do the same when presented with proofs of Ali (a) in Quran and Sunnah. Dance around the facts and come out convincing foolish humans to not see the proper position in Ali (a) in Quran or Sunnah. So it's not just atheists, but almost all humans who dance around things when proven.

Humans are not sincerely seeking truth and probably never have been. Cosmological argument almost has opposite effect, it gives too much room for conjecture.

The options:

(1) Infinite regress (proven impossible)
(2) Eternal universe shrinking to plank time universe (impossible as well)
(3) Creator/Unmoved Primer mover

But you can conjecture about 1 and 2 and make either sound plausible.

 

[QuestioningMind]

But should BB be taken for granted? there have been numerous other theories in the past before BB and there will likely be new theories in the future.

One issue which I have with BB is that putting all this vast universe into a smaller than atom place (called singularity) sounds ridiculous.
But even if that's taken as true BB doesn't disprove unmoved mover:
Unmoved mover - Wikipedia

Do you understand what a nuclear explosion is? It is when we release the vast amounts of energy that are contained within the nucleus of a tiny atom that can't been seen by the naked eye. It may sound ridiculous, but it's true.

No one claims that the BB disproves an unmoved mover... it simply offers a potential explanation that does not require an unmoved mover.

 

[paradox]

Do you understand what a nuclear explosion is? It is when we release the vast amounts of energy that are contained within the nucleus of a tiny atom that can't been seen by the naked eye. It may sound ridiculous, but it's true.

Yes, but still nuclear explosion compared to whole galaxy is like a drop of water compared to ocean times 1000000...

it simply offers a potential explanation that does not require an unmoved mover.

Singularity is not understood at all, how can it be replacement for unmoved mover if nothing is known? (excluding math ofc.)

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yes, but still nuclear explosion compared to whole galaxy is like a drop of water compared to ocean times 1000000...


Singularity is not understood at all, how can it be replacement for unmoved mover if nothing is known? (excluding math ofc.)

Yes, but still nuclear explosion compared to whole galaxy is like a drop of water compared to ocean times 1000000...

That's right, it's the same concept only on a much larger scale.

Singularity is not understood at all, how can it be replacement for unmoved mover if nothing is known?

You are right, it MIGHT be, but no one can say for sure. The problem is that those who propose the unmoved mover hypothesis claim that this unmoved mover is a certainty. The proper answer for everyone is WE DO NOT KNOW.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what do you mean by "unshared"?

An unshared premise is a premise that not all accept as fact. Consider the arguments that believers make that presume the existence of a god. Those arguments cannot come to sound conclusions in the estimate of a skeptic because they're based in a false or an unproven assumption. The KCA begins with the claim that “whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.” and that “the universe began to exist.” Either or both of these might be correct or incorrect. The argument can be rescued by making it conditional:

If whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence and if the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its existence.

The options:

(1) Infinite regress (proven impossible)
(2) Eternal universe shrinking to plank time universe (impossible as well)
(3) Creator/Unmoved Primer mover

But you can conjecture about 1 and 2 and make either sound plausible.

It appears that you either didn't read my comment to you carefully or you didn't understand it. You're doing what every proponent of this argument does, which is to simply wave away the logical options he doesn't like with a single word such as absurd or impossible. Those aren't arguments. They're unsupported opinions, statements of incredulity.

You also seem to have missed the explanation for why a deity is no less absurd or impossible than any of the other logical options, and actually more so for being orders of magnitude less parsimonious.

But how about we leave reason behind and I "rebut" your comment as you have mine, with the wave of a hand? I declare gods impossible because I just don't see how such a thing could exist undesigned and uncreated. It seems incredible to me, and it's not the choice I have selected by faith, so I declare it impossible:

The options:

[1] A deity (proven impossible)
[2] A multiverse
[3] A universe that appeared uncaused
[4] An eternal universe

That's the quality of your argument, and also the quality of the KCA. Where did the theistic possibility go in my argument and the non-theistic possibilities in yours and Craig's? Nobody ought to let themselves be convinced by such an argument. It's got glaring fallacies in it.

 

[paradox]

The proper answer for everyone is WE DO NOT KNOW.

That is indeed correct, we don't know.

But unmoved mover remains unchallenged.

An unshared premise is a premise that not all accept as fact. Consider the arguments that believers make that presume the existence of a god. Those arguments cannot come to sound conclusions in the estimate of a skeptic because they're based in a false or an unproven assumption. The KCA begins with the claim that “whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.” and that “the universe began to exist.” Either or both of these might be correct or incorrect. The argument can be rescued by making it conditional:

If whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence and if the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its existence.

You're referring to "the fallacy of appeal to authority".
Appeal to Authority (logicallyfallacious.com)

However there is no appeal of authority here IMO.
We know that nothing starts to exist uncaused in real world.

Is there an example of uncaused whatever observed in reality?

 

[Link]

You also seem to have missed the explanation for why a deity is no less absurd or impossible than any of the other logical options, and actually more so for being orders of magnitude less parsimonious.

I've made threads and debated about how other options other then a Creator don't make sense. But I've realized so much conjecture can be made, that, this Kalam argument is not that useful. Not that it doesn't prove what it sets to do, but the skies the limit of how many irrational claims people can make.

This thread I was saying how it's better to start with something we all see directly, who and what we are, and use that to prove God who is linked to who we are, both from vision/judgment perspective and descent of virtues perspective.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That is indeed correct, we don't know.

But unmoved mover remains unchallenged.



You're referring to "the fallacy of appeal to authority".
Appeal to Authority (logicallyfallacious.com)

However there is no appeal of authority here IMO.
We know that nothing starts to exist uncaused in real world.

Is there an example of uncaused whatever observed in reality?

That is indeed correct, we don't know.

But unmoved mover remains unchallenged.

I suppose it is 'unchallenged', but in the same way that the hypothesis that the universe was created as an unintended side effect of a cosmic pixie farting is 'unchallenged'.

 

[paradox]

but in the same way that the hypothesis that the universe was created as an unintended side effect of a cosmic pixie farting is 'unchallenged'.

That's nonsense, you can surely do better than that.

There must be explanation of how things move or become to be uncaused, if not, prime mover is the only logical explanation.

Let me help you,
virtual particles seem uncaused, but the best you can get out of this is again "we don't know", you can't with certainty say "it's uncaused" or "caused"

A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle.

“virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

this is a good read:
Virtual Particles: What are they?

science has not gone beyond that, therefore we don't know.
in any case virtual particles are not matter therefore all matter is observably caused.
prime mover is the only logical explanation.

 

[paradox]

if it was as suggested then it was before logic in our universe coalesced. You cannot apply current logic to what may have been a completely different set of rules.

I just can't imagine what alternative could there be in addition to logic and illogic? this is binary difference 0 or 1, no alternative.

Quantum logic is one attempt:
Quantum logic - Wikipedia

However it doesn't explain singularity.
A Quantum Physics Approach to a Singularity Problem (scitechdaily.com)

Mathematical calculations of singularity lead to infinite result, which makes singularity infinitely absurd for me.