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

[KWED]

I just can't imagine what alternative could there be

Ah, my apologies. I didn't realise you have a rational, evidence based argument.
Carry on!

 

[ChristineM]

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

So hoe were these true representations identified before the universe began to exist.

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).

I stated unknown, i.e, it either began to exist or it already existed.

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.

The laws of identity are a man made concept that were compiled billions of years after the universe formed. Do you know is said laws existed prior to this universe?

 

[Mister Emu]

I don't know what you're asking.

I am asking to get support for the second premise of the Cosmological Argument being "unshared".

The observations that lead to a Big Bang theory show that the universe underwent motion.

Agree, but I didn't say that. Soundness depends on valid reasoning applied to correct premises, and nothing else.

I'm sorry, but you did say that "an unshared premise cannot lead to sound conclusions." No matter though, because you are correct here; soundness has nothing to do with "unshared premises".

So hoe were these true representations identified before the universe began to exist.

If there were a period we could describe as before the universe began to exist, we've already accepted the second premise and implied the first.

I stated unknown, i.e, it either began to exist or it already existed.

As I said, whether the universe already existed or began to exist doesn't matter. It's that it engaged in motion.

The laws of identity are a man made concept that were compiled billions of years after the universe formed. Do you know is said laws existed prior to this universe?

The law of identity is most certainly not man-made, and exists one of the most fundamental truths of reality; elsewise all of existence would be chaos.

Postulating chaos is also not an argument against God, but for Him.

 

[ChristineM]

If there were a period we could describe as before the universe began to exist, we've already accepted the second premise and implied the first.

Eh? So you accept the unknowable. Ok

As I said, whether the universe already existed or began to exist doesn't matter. It's that it engaged in motion.

Please provide citation.

The law of identity is most certainly not man-made, and exists one of the most fundamental truths of reality; elsewise all of existence would be chaos.

All of existence is chaos

Postulating chaos is also not an argument against God, but for Him.

Again, citation please

 

[Mister Emu]

Eh?

If there is a period that can be described as before the universe began to exist, we've accepted P2, the universe began to exist, and by acknowledging motion we've implied P1 (see: Aristotle's Metaphysics).

Please provide citation.

The Big Bang; more precisely the observations of change that are explained with the Big Bang theory.

All of existence is chaos

That's just inaccurate. It's proven inaccurate by the stable identity of things in existence.

Again, citation please

Chaos is every possible premise all at the same time. Anything, and everything, follows a contradiction. This is what the law of identity prevents.

 

[ChristineM]

If there is a period that can be described as before the universe began to exist, we've accepted P2, the universe began to exist, and by acknowledging motion we've implied P1 (see: Aristotle's Metaphysics).

But you do not know if the universe was pre-existing
Implying is not proof

The Big Bang; more precisely the observations of change that are explained with the Big Bang theory.

Ok, now i understand, however you cannot know if it was caused or uncaused.

That's just inaccurate. It's proven inaccurate by the stable identity of things in existence.

Wrong, gravity is omnipresent throughout the universe, it's effects follow the inverse square rule meaning gravity of any individual object can never reach null. Therefore the gravity of every object interacts with every other object causing true randomness and chaotic movement.

I am of course talking of the universal scale, not the human scale.

Chaos is every possible premise all at the same time. Anything, and everything, follows a contradiction. This is what the law of identity prevents.

Not prevented collision of planets, evolution or a dripping tap

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am asking to get support for the second premise of the Cosmological Argument being "unshared".

Sorry, but I have difficulty deciding precisely what you mean. Are you asking for support from me? What would that look like? You might mean that you would like me to explain why I don't accept the second premise, the universe began to exist. That's just one interpretation of the data. What we know is that the universe began to expand from a much smaller, hotter, and denser state, not that it began to exist at the moment of initial expansion. Perhaps we live in an oscillating universe, a logical possibility dismissed out of hand in the argument through the use of premises that overlook logical possibilities. The argument is rescued by making it conditional: If the universe had a first instant and a prior cause, then that cause might have been a deity or un unconscious source such as a multiverse.

The first premise is also unshared. Even if the universe did have a first instant, it might not have had a cause.

But the major weakness of the KCA is the non sequitur that follows, which claims that this cause must be a sentient creator.

The observations that lead to a Big Bang theory show that the universe underwent motion.

And again I find your writing opaque. What do you mean by the universe undergoing motion? The onset of expansion, or perhaps some other motion such as rotation about an axis?

Why did you post that whatever it meant? I'll guess again. Perhaps you mean that because the universe began expanding in earnest about 13.8 billion years ago, that that supports one of the unshared premises. It would help if you would flesh out your comments to make them clearer. Concision is a virtue up to a point, then becomes a problem.

you did say that "an unshared premise cannot lead to sound conclusions."

Yes. If I read an argument that contains I premise I reject, I will reject it's conclusion as well. I will not call an argument's conclusion sound unless it derives from fallacy-free reasoning applied to correct premises. Do you think I should?

you are correct here; soundness has nothing to do with "unshared premises".

Disagree for the reason just given. Unshared premises are potentially false premises, and conclusions derived from them cannot be called sound, since if the premise is incorrect, so is the conclusion.

 

[paradox]

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.

Ah, my apologies. I didn't realise you have a rational, evidence based argument.
Carry on!

Sorry, I'm unable to determine if you're joking or taking my view seriously.
I gave several useful scientific links which should help to come out with something useful

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

Unmoved mover doesn't have to be God, but what ever it is is certainly non natural power simply because moving things without moving requires non natural cause.
Analogy: you move things mentally without your self moving, thus you used non natural power to move things.
Feel free to describe this power (of unmoved mover) to your liking, it's certainly tough thing to do...

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.

What exactly is not true with unmoved mover?

Is God a solution? What caused God to exist?

Who said unmoved mover *must* be God?

Even if it is God your question doesn't make any sense, unmoved mover is uncaused:
Unmoved mover - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

Feel free to describe this power (of unmoved mover) to your liking, it's certainly tough thing to do...

Or perhaps impossible

 

[paradox]

Or perhaps impossible

Sure it is, let's say God is one such description, so if you want to refute it as possibility give better description that is plausible.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure it is, let's say God is one such description, so if you want to refute it as possibility give better description that is plausible.

I assume you mean your god and not one of the 3800(ish) other creator gods worshipped throughout history? Im not really sure how that can work unless they were on a job share scheme.

And why say god? Why not say a Hershey bar or Rincwind the wizzard (yes i spelled it right) or any other guess?

Or why not be honest and say we don't know but guess is that my god did it.

 

[firedragon]

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.

These arguments are in the school of natural theology. One cannot amalgamate existence of a divinity and the qualities of the divinity in one single deduction. To expect that is an absurdity by itself. Illogical.

 

[firedragon]

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

That only shows your ignorance. You are making conjecture.

 

[Mister Emu]

But you do not know if the universe was pre-existing

It is not coherent to question the idea of the beginning of the universe AND to make arguments which are based on the idea of the beginning of the universe. Either there is some state which we can describe as prior to the existence of the universe or there cannot be representations of reality prior to the universe.

As I later stated, the existence of the universe prior to the Big Bang is immaterial to Kalam. We observe that the universe underwent motion. Either our observational experience is a true representation of reality or we argue that motion doesn't exist.

Ok, now i understand, however you cannot know if it was caused or uncaused.

Unless all motion is caused, then we know it is caused. Aristotle's Physics is all about the philosophy of motion, and part of the conclusion is that cause is necessary for motion.

Wrong, gravity is omnipresent throughout the universe, it's effects follow the inverse square rule meaning gravity of any individual object can never reach null. Therefore the gravity of every object interacts with every other object causing true randomness and chaotic movement.

I am of course talking of the universal scale, not the human scale.

Except, if the movement caused is by the effects of gravity across the universe it is neither random nor chaotic. It may appear so if we are unable to calculate the fullness of gravitational effects.

Neither does seemingly random movement argue against the fact of stable identity as a fundamental law of our reality. A stable effect and meaning of gravity such that we can say gravity never reaches null across the expanse of the universe(also a stable identity) is an inherent acceptance of the law of identity in and of itself. You cannot make a coherent statement without identity, the concept of coherence or any sense or form of meaning at all is necessarily an acknowledgement of the law of identity.

Not prevented collision of planets, evolution or a dripping tap

Ok. But it does prevent all of existence being everything and nothing together all at once. Which is why we can have this discussion, because you have a stable identity and so do I.

Sorry, but I have difficulty deciding precisely what you mean. Are you asking for support from me? What would that look like?

Showing a coherent argument that the universe has not exhibited motion.

Perhaps we live in an oscillating universe, a logical possibility dismissed out of hand in the argument through the use of premises that overlook logical possibilities.

Oscillation is a type of motion and therefore subject to the same requirements that beginning to exist has: a cause.

But the major weakness of the KCA is the non sequitur that follows, which claims that this cause must be a sentient creator.

I don't remember Kalam concluding a sentient creator deity. That's later argumentation.

The first premise is also unshared.

By who, and why should we consider their opinions meaningful? Motion was one of the earliest debates in western history, and if you want to rehash all of philosophy to get away from acknowledging God, by all means, that's your prerogative. But, no one else is beholden to that attitude.

And again I find your writing opaque. What do you mean by the universe undergoing motion?

As this is a philosophical discussion, I of course mean philosophical motion.

Why did you post that whatever it meant? I'll guess again. Perhaps you mean that because the universe began expanding in earnest about 13.8 billion years ago, that that supports one of the unshared premises.

P2 provides it's contribution to the argument no matter what motion the universe underwent, whether that is beginning to exist or going through some other alteration. We observe that the universe changed during the even we describe with the Big Bang theory.

I will not call an argument's conclusion sound unless it derives from fallacy-free reasoning applied to correct premises. Do you think I should?

What I think is that whether you call a conclusion sound has no bearing on whether it actually is sound. Agreement is not necessary for premises or conclusions to be true; it doesn't matter how much you refuse to "share" the premise that a multi-ton speeding automobile will destroy unprotected human flesh to the point of death, if you get hit by a Mack truck, you're done.

Unshared premises are potentially false premises, and conclusions derived from them cannot be called sound, since if the premise is incorrect, so is the conclusion.

Shared premises are potentially false as well. Popularity has no determining capacity on truth, that's a fallacy.

 

[ChristineM]

It is not coherent to question the idea of the beginning of the universe AND to make arguments which are based on the idea of the beginning of the universe

There goes the kalam argument then

As I later stated, the existence of the universe prior to the Big Bang is immaterial to Kalam

Of course, why use honestly when you can guess.
The argument is specific in its statement of cause. This is not known so kalam uses assumption, which was my original contention

Unless all motion is caused, then we know it is caused. Aristotle's Physics is all about the philosophy of motion, and part of the conclusion is that cause is necessary for motion.

Again, it is not known if caused or uncaused. Cause and effect did not exit until after the formation of the universe.

Except, if the movement caused is by the effects of gravity across the universe it is neither random nor chaotic. It may appear so if we are unable to calculate the fullness of gravitational effects.

I'm not sure you have a handle on the effects of (lets keep it small so say...) a trillon gravity sources pulling an object on a trillion different directions over the effect of expansion. And the closest object to it is being pulled in ... Well you know what i mean... I think.

Ok. But it does prevent all of existence being everything and nothing together all at once. Which is why we can have this discussion, because you have a stable identity and so do

On the tiny, human scale of moments, yes, over months years, decades, centuries, millennia etc, not so much.

 

[paradox]

I assume you mean your god and not one of the 3800(ish) other creator gods worshipped throughout history? Im not really sure how that can work unless they were on a job share scheme.

Existence of multiple religions with creator dogma is product of people not God.
You assume that people would never do such a thing thus multiple religions disprove God, which is false.

And why say god? Why not say a Hershey bar or Rincwind the wizzard (yes i spelled it right) or any other guess?

god is established name, changing name would not change it's meaning or disprove what God (or what ever you call it) is.
beside that, there are other names of god already but this still doesn't change the meaning.

Or why not be honest and say we don't know but guess is that my god did it.

If one experiences God there is no need for him\her to guess, it's rather those who do not experience anything to make a guess.
But yes, honestly, if one does not experience god but claim that god did it, that would be dishonest or illogical.

 

[ChristineM]

Existence of multiple religions with creator dogma is product of people not God.
You assume that people would never do such a thing thus multiple religions disprove God, which is false.

Which god... Oh yours of course.

Oh no, multiple religion each with different gods actually shows gods to be a construct of the human mind

god is established name, changing name would not change it's meaning or disprove what God (or what ever you call it) is.
beside that, there are other names of god already but this still doesn't change the meaning.

God is a belief, i am not changing the name but a he object of creation.

If one experiences God there is no need for him\her to guess, it's rather those who do not experience anything to make a guess.
But yes, honestly, if one does not experience god but claim that god did it, that would be dishonest or illogical.

Well thats convenient.

Actually it's believers who claim god did it without any sort of evidence whatsoever. Yo me that is dishonest

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What exactly is not true with unmoved mover?

That one exists. The most one can say is that it is a logical possibility.

Who said unmoved mover *must* be God?

So you're going to play the game the ID people played and act as if you are not arguing for a god? Fine. Then let the unmoved mover be the multiverse. Incidentally, in my experience, nobody making this argument isn't a theist. It's called a cosmological argument proving God.

unmoved mover is uncaused

Like the multiverse. You're making an excellent argument for there being alternatives to an intelligent designer for the universe as a cause of the universe.

How are you planning to make the case that an unmoved mover of any kind exists? You seem to be assuming its existence. If so, THAT'S an unshared premise with anybody who doesn't agree with you.

Oscillation is a type of motion and therefore subject to the same requirements that beginning to exist has: a cause.

What's your point? We weren't talking about a cause for oscillation.

Nor is there any more requirement that an oscillating object was caused than any other kind of object. Can a god oscillate? If so, does that mean it must have a cause? Of course not.

By who, and why should we consider their opinions meaningful?

By whomever you're making your argument to, and it isn't important that you consider their opinions meaningful. They do. If one is trying to convince others, which is usually the case when he presents an argument, he ought to care if his premises are not accepted as fact, because he'll have no chance of success with those who don't.

Shared premises are potentially false as well. Popularity has no determining capacity on truth, that's a fallacy.

This is your argument, not mine. I haven't introduced the term popularity into this discussion. Or motion.

 

[paradox]

That one exists. The most one can say is that it is a logical possibility.

This is not logical possibility but logical necessity.

A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case.

Metaphysical necessity - Wikipedia

Then let the unmoved mover be the multiverse.

Like the multiverse.

How exactly is multiverse uncaused?

How are you planning to make the case that an unmoved mover of any kind exists? You seem to be assuming its existence. If so, THAT'S an unshared premise with anybody who doesn't agree with you.

See above, it's logical necessity.

 

[Mister Emu]

There goes the kalam argument then

That does not follow.

Again, it is not known if caused or uncaused. Cause and effect did not exit until after the formation of the universe.

Why? Because you declare it?

I'm not sure you have a handle on the effects of (lets keep it small so say...) a trillon gravity sources pulling an object on a trillion different directions over the effect of expansion. And the closest object to it is being pulled in ... Well you know what i mean... I think.

Of course I don't, that's why I specifically addressed an inability to calculate all gravitational forces.

Nor does it change that any coherent concept whatsoever proves the law of identity.

On the tiny, human scale of moments, yes, over months years, decades, centuries, millennia etc, not so much.

It doesn't matter what scale. The meaningful idea of scales at all works just as well. Identity is what informs every coherent thought; the law of identity is required for meaning, because without it everything is everything, and nothing.