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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You're referring to "the fallacy of appeal to authority".

I don't think so. What I wrote was, "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."

Where do you see an appeal to authority there? Who's authority did you think I (or somebody else if you didn't mean me) was appealing to?

Is there an example of uncaused whatever observed in reality?

We have no observations of universes forming at all. Experience within a universe does not necessarily apply to the advent of universes.

Is there an example of a deity observed in reality? No, but we still accept the idea that it is possible simply because we have no way to show that it is impossible.

I've made threads and debated about how other options other then a Creator don't make sense.

To you. If you want to persuade critical thinkers, you'll need to provide more than your opinions. All of the options are counterintuitive as I mentioned. You see the god option differently because you have accepted it as correct decades ago and are comfortable with it, whereas you view these other options nonsensical speculations that defy experience and common sense. But your preference is actually the least probable, since it requires the existence of the least probable thing existing undesigned and uncreated. That's why you call these other logical possibilities ridiculous compared to gods. If somebody first mentioned gods to you now, you would consider that option no less ridiculous than the others, or the others no more ridiculous that gods.

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.

But you haven't done that and can't. (@paradox : This is what I mean by an unshared premise. You can see that Link is simply assuming that a god exists, which will lead him to conclusions that others who don't share that belief will reject). One possible reason for that, and one I expect you never consider, is that you are mistaken about gods, and that they DON'T exist.

The fact that believers have to describe their god in the same terms used to describe the nonexistent ought to suggest something. Things that exist - i.e., are real and part of reality - occupy time and space, and affect and are affected by other things that exist. Things that don't exist have none of these qualities. There is no time or place to experience them, and they affect nothing. Compare wolves and werewolves. You can see a wolf if you're at the right place, and you can affect one another if permitted to. But with werewolves, well, none of that is true to our knowledge. That's the difference between the existent and the nonexistent.

 

[ppp]

It proves a Creator.

Not even a little bit. If it were a sound argument, then it would show that the universe had a cause. Not one thing more.
But, of course, it is an unsound argument.

 

[paradox]

I don't think so. What I wrote was, "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.

Unmoved mover argument is not comparable to God argument at all.

Assuming God is fallacy or "unshared", yes, unmoved mover however is pure logic and there is evidence nothing is uncaused in real world,
but you keep putting the 2 into a same basket as if both are belief based which is for certain false claim.

We have no observations of universes forming at all. Experience within a universe does not necessarily apply to the advent of universes.

Yes but you have no evidence for this claim, unmoved mover is backed by evidence however.

All that you can say about unmoved mover is "I don't agree" or "I don't know" but how do you support your disagreement?

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Luckily it does not need your understanding.


The thing is no one knows so you are not alone in your understanding.

 

[paradox]

Luckily it does not need your understanding.
The thing is no one knows so you are not alone in your understanding.

Actually there is no need to understand, if neither classical nor quantum logic nor mathematics can explain singularity then BB theory is doomed.
Scientists will have to get out with a better theory.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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"



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.

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"

"we don't know"... that's as much as anyone can say. It MIGHT be a 'prime mover', but it MIGHT be any one of a dozen different explanations. There's an equal amount of verifiable evidence for this 'prime mover' as there is for my nonsense explanation of a 'farting pixie'. You can't admit that we don't know and then go on to state, but the most logical explanation is... . Simply leave it at we don't know until there is some verifiable evidence to back up any one hypothesis.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Unmoved mover argument is not comparable to God argument at all.

That's not relevant to the point that an argument that begins with an unshared premise cannot lead to a sound conclusion.

Assuming God is fallacy or "unshared", yes, unmoved mover however is pure logic

Assuming the existence of an unmoved mover is a logical error, whatever that means to you. Accepting that it is a logical possibility that cannot be ruled in or out at this time is not.

there is evidence nothing is uncaused in real world,

What would you expect to see if something happened uncaused?

you have no evidence for this claim

What I wrote was, "We have no observations of universes forming at all. Experience within a universe does not necessarily apply to the advent of universes." Have we observed a universe form? Do we know that the rules within a universe all apply to the universe as a whole? The answer to both of those is no.

All that you can say about unmoved mover is "I don't agree" or "I don't know" but how do you support your disagreement?

As I indicated, I'm not clear on what you mean specifically by unmoved mover, but I understand it to mean an uncaused cause - perhaps a deity or a multiverse. If so, my disagreement would be with somebody picking one of those options (or any of the others) without ruling it in or the others out. And I don't know is my position. It's also my position that nobody knows, including theists.

 

[paradox]

That's not relevant to the point that an argument that begins with an unshared premise cannot lead to a sound conclusion.

"unshared" is your own invention to support your disagreement, there is no such thing as "unshared argument" in argumentative philosophy, it's rather "The fallacy of appeal to authority":
Argument and Argumentation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And the "authority" here is logic (unmoved mover), which isn't fallacy.

What would you expect to see if something happened uncaused?

It would certainly be a miracle or supernatural phenomenon since if it's uncaused no one would be able to figure out *why* it happened.

As I indicated, I'm not clear on what you mean specifically by unmoved mover, but I understand it to mean an uncaused cause - perhaps a deity or a multiverse.

Uncaused cause:

the unmoved mover moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action.

multiverse is not solution because "what caused multiverse to exist?"

"we don't know"... that's as much as anyone can say. It MIGHT be a 'prime mover', but it MIGHT be any one of a dozen different explanations.

except that there are no other logical explanations.

Simply leave at we don't know until there is some verifiable evidence to back up any one hypothesis.

I think it takes belief to hope for such evidence, but who knows...

 

[QuestioningMind]

"unshared" is your own invention to support your disagreement, there is no such thing as "unshared argument" in argumentative philosophy, it's rather "The fallacy of appeal to authority":
Argument and Argumentation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And the "authority" here is logic (unmoved mover), which isn't fallacy.


It would certainly be a miracle or supernatural phenomenon since if it's uncaused no one would be able to figure out *why* it happened.


Uncaused cause:


multiverse is not solution because "what caused multiverse to exist?"


except that there are no other logical explanations.


I think it takes belief to hope for such evidence, but who knows...

except that there are no other logical explanations.

Only based on what you know... however there is far too much that WE DON'T KNOW to make such an assertion. Perhaps if we knew what WE DON'T KNOW it would be obvious that some other explanation is the ONLY logical explanation.

 

[blü 2]

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

No, it doesn't prove a creator.

Not even a non-sentient creating process.

It doesn't take quantum physics into account, for a start. As I've mentioned to you more than once, and several others have as well, at the quantum level uncountable events occur throughout the universe every second which are uncaused in terms of classical physics.

If it satisfactorily demonstrated the existence of a real God, there'd be an entire government-subsidized industry working from evidence to derive a description of God. [He]'d be another corner of physics, maybe weaponizable. We might be building very expensive Large Angel Colliders and testing ercontinental Hypersonic Curse Missiles.

More glaringly still, if it satisfactorily demonstrated the existence of a real God, there'd be remarkably fewer unbelievers.

 

[Mister Emu]

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

No, it's based on taking observations as true representations of existence vs. rejecting motion as a concept.

The universe began to exist - unknown

That is a shallow take. Whether or not the Universe began with the Big Bang is immaterial, the universe changed at the Big Bang from some previous state(non-existence or some other existence).

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.

All of logic flows from the law of identity. To have a "different set of rules" would necessitate that the law of identity doesn't exist, in which case you've done the work of proving God exists. In chaos, all things exist.

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

I suppose there are still adherents of Parmenides and Zeno. Other than a straight rejection of the concept of change, who doesn't share the premise that the Universe is in motion? That it changed to bring about the current natural order during an event we call the Big Bang?

 

[Mister Emu]

That's not relevant to the point that an argument that begins with an unshared premise cannot lead to a sound conclusion.

Soundness doesn't rely on unanimity. Where did you get that notion?

 

[ppp]

Soundness doesn't rely on unanimity. Where did you get that notion?

Arguments are about communicating truth claims from one person to another in an effort to convince. An argument that does not take one's audience into account is a failure. This is why any sound argument starts with premises that both parties accept.

 

[Mister Emu]

This is why any sound argument starts with premises that both parties accept.

It's not effective in changing opinions if participants disagree about premises, sure, but someone's acceptance or rejecting of a premise doesn't have anything to do with the soundness of an argument.

An argument is sound if it is valid in form and reflects reality, regardless of whether someone acknowledges it.

 

[ppp]

It's not effective in changing opinions if participants disagree about premises, sure, but someone's acceptance or rejecting of a premise doesn't have anything to do with the soundness of an argument.

An argument is sound if it is valid in form and reflects reality, regardless of whether someone acknowledges it.

An argument is sound if it is valid in form and if the premises are accepted as true. We can only accept that premises are true. Absolute certainty cannot be rationally achieved in whether the premise accurately reflects reality.,

 

[blü 2]

Is there an example of uncaused whatever observed in reality?

That would depend on how you define 'cause', I'd suggest.

Certainly there are events in physics happening constantly at the quantum level that are uncaused in classical terms. Examples are the quantum phenomena that give rise to the Casimir effect, and the emission of any particular particle in the course of radioactive decay. Such and similar are happening all over the cosmos in uncountable numbers every millisecond.

At an individual level they can't be predicted causally; but with sufficient information their incidence can be predicted statistically.

 

[Mister Emu]

An argument is sound if it is valid in form and if the premises are accepted as true.

That's an informal fallacy. Arguments are not made sound because people accept them to be true. Every single human, or more broadly, every sentient consciousness, could assent to a certain set of premises and still produce an unsound argument.

Absolute certainty cannot be rationally achieved in whether the premise accurately reflects reality.

Sure. I'm confused as to how this uncertainty means that people cannot reject sound premises or assent to false ones.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"unshared" is your own invention to support your disagreement, there is no such thing as "unshared argument" in argumentative philosophy

Being an unshared premise - not an unshared argument as you wrote - simply means that there is a premise in an argument that one does not accept as true. It might be correct, but if the critical thinker evaluating the argument doesn't know that, he cannot call the conclusion sound. To make it sound, he needs to convert it to a conditional argument: if such-and-such premise is true, then such-and-such conclusion derived from it follows because the reasoning is valid (fallacy free) whether the premise is factual or not.

Let's say that someone believes that we all possess an immortal soul and will live on forever in an afterlife. He might argue, "All men are immortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is immortal." Did he prove Socrates' immortality to somebody who doesn't accept the premise of all men being immortal? No. Why? Unshared premise. The reasoning following them is valid, that is, fallacy free, but when we begin with an unshared premise, we cannot persuade another who doesn't accept it of anything that depends on that premise being correct.

And to remind you, that's one of the criticisms of Kalam, which assumes that the universe had a first instant and a cause. These may be correct, but not necessarily. It may have had both, neither, or just a first instant. So, the argument begins with unshared premises.

it's rather "The fallacy of appeal to authority":
Argument and Argumentation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
And the "authority" here is logic (unmoved mover), which isn't fallacy.

An appeal to authority fallacy as I understand it is a form of the statement, "The conclusion of that argument is correct because so-and-so says it is," the implication being that so-and-so cannot be wrong. This should be distinguished from the statement, "So-and-so has shown himself to be knowledgeable and usually correct, so I consider his opinion more likely to be correct than not." The former is a fallacy, the latter not. When we say that there is a scientific consensus among experts on a subject and that we consider them likely correct, we aren't saying that that makes the opinion of the majority correct, which would be an appeal to authority fallacy, but rather, that their opinion is more likely to be correct than less the well informed opinions of lay people.

It would certainly be a miracle or supernatural phenomenon since if it's uncaused no one would be able to figure out *why* it happened.

So what would that look like? Suppose it started raining now for no reason. How would we know that? Suppose you happened upon a watch in a heath that had no cause to be there. Nobody built it or put it there. It just appeared there uncaused a few moments before your arrival. How would you know that? What would that look like to tip you off? My point isn't that things exist or occur uncaused, just that if they did, we wouldn't necessarily be able to tell that. So we never found a cause. If we assume that there must have been one, we conclude that there was a cause, but that it was never found. But if a thing did occur uncaused and we assume that there must be a cause even if we haven't found it yet, then we'll never discover the reality of uncaused "effects."

multiverse is not solution because "what caused multiverse to exist?"

It's not necessary to answer that for it to be a logical possibility. It's analogous to saying that biological evolution is not a solution to why we see the tree of life we find because we don't know where the first living population capable of evolving genetically came from.

Is God a solution? What caused God to exist?

Other than a straight rejection of the concept of change, who doesn't share the premise that the Universe is in motion? That it changed to bring about the current natural order during an event we call the Big Bang?

I don't know what you're asking. Most knowledgeable people accept the idea that the universe was once much more small, dense, and hot.

Soundness doesn't rely on unanimity. Where did you get that notion?

Agree, but I didn't say that. Soundness depends on valid reasoning applied to correct premises, and nothing else. Different thinkers may come to different, contradictory conclusions, and each think their conclusion sound. If so, at east one is wrong. If an apparently sound conclusion proves false, it wasn't actually sound.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually there is no need to understand, if neither classical nor quantum logic nor mathematics can explain singularity then BB theory is doomed.
Scientists will have to get out with a better theory.

So god did it, d'oh.

Cosmology is working on it. Unlike religion who has been making the same 'i don't know so god' claim for 10000 years

 

[KWED]

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

Ok. Show why it is "nonsense" then. Challenge the assertion using evidence and reason.
Remember, you can't simply dismiss it as "absurd" as that is the fallacy of personal incredulity.