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

[Mister Emu]

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.

No, there is a cause for every change. Because infinite regress is impossible, it is necessary for there to be a First Cause.

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

Every time you speak of "unshared premises", you are talking about whether a premise has more or less popular support. Which has nothing to do with soundness. Something can have full shared acceptance and be unsound. Something can have 0% acceptance and be sound.

"Shared"ness is not a component of judging whether a premise or conclusion is sound.

 

[ChristineM]

That does not follow.

Yes it does.

Why? Because you declare it?

No, because nothing is known about how the universe formed prior to 10e-43 of a second after the bb.

And the natural laws of physics (including cause and effect) did not begin to coalesce until after that point in time and did not fully resolve into the laws we know today until 10e-32 of a second after the bb

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

Oh they can be calculated, however so many trillions of them make for long term chaotic movement

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

Ive mentioned this before. The law of identity is a human construct and pretty much useless in terms of how the universe began

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.

Oh thats convenient. So explain how the law of identity meant anything before there was anything.

I think the problem is you are thinking in terms of what is valid today. This is not so for the formation of the universe, natural laws did not exist, infinities cause the breakdown of and attempt to understand whatever processes occured.
We simply do not know if the universe was caused or uncaused, was created at the bb or existed previously. So the kalam argument is based on the unknown and currently unknowable. Yet it makes statements of the point in time* as though fact and the whole argument depends on these guesses.

*Btw,it is not even know if time existed at the time (quandary) of the bb

 

[Mister Emu]

Yes it does.

Show me how then, please.

And the natural laws of physics (including cause and effect)

Cause and effect is a metaphysical law that applies to the concept of motion itself; the physics of our universe are just further expressions of it.

Oh they can be calculated, however so many trillions of them make for long term chaotic movement

When you say chaotic movement, are you meaning random? Or are you meaning unintelligible?

Are things concurrently moving in every possible direction at once and not moving at all? That's what I mean by chaos.

The law of identity is a human construct and pretty much useless in terms of how the universe began

Identity is a fundamental truth we observe in the very existence of an intelligible reality.

Oh thats convenient.

It's neither convenient nor inconvenient, it just is.

So explain how the law of identity meant anything before there was anything.

There is no such time. There is/was always an eternal First Cause, this is a logical necessity.

I think the problem is you are thinking in terms of what is valid today.

I think the problem is that you apply fixtures of rationality to this physical universe instead of to all possible intelligible worlds. Any world that isn't intelligible definitionally includes God.

 

[Link]

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.

Salam

This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying arguments more of a nature that uses God's light with respect to the human soul (moral argument, vision argument, value argument by Plato and Aristotle, etc) are more useful and helpful. That is because there is no room for conjecture, it brings God and his relationship with who and what we are to perspective and itself is a spiritual discussion. One that has endless potential signs, proofs, and evidence, is the link of the soul, it's aspects and signs of God. This can lead to a fruitful discussion and be a journey itself. That perhaps is why Quran and Sunnah both emphasize on this approach more so then others.

 

[ppp]

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.


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

That is not what I am saying that it means.

1. It means that "sound" is only as good as your perception of reality.
2. That any argument that you conclude is sound may still be absolutely wrong.
3. All that soundness means is that you accept the premises as true.
4. There is no guarantee that the premises are true.

Before you go one to something else, which of those four statements do you disagree with? And why? Specifically.

 

[ChristineM]

Show me how then, please.

After you, i was commenting on your claim

Cause and effect is a metaphysical law that applies to the concept of motion itself; the physics of our universe are just further expressions of it.

Wrong it's a fundamental law of science
Which did not begin to form until after the bb and is based on conditions within this universe

When you say chaotic movement, are you meaning random?

I am meaning what i say

Are things concurrently moving in every possible direction at once and not moving at all? That's what I mean by chaos.

And that explains much thanks.
BTW, you are, at this moment moving at around 1.3 million mph. You cannot feel it yet you are moving

Identity is a fundamental truth we observe in the very existence of an intelligible reality.

The law of identity is a logical construct. Logic is a human endeavour

It's neither convenient nor inconvenient, it just is.

No it isn't, it's your belief.

There is no such time. There is/was always an eternal First Cause, this is a logical necessity.

In your opinion.
Perhaps you need to write a paper on it and present it for peer review

I think the problem is that you apply fixtures of rationality to this physical universe

Well yes ... Sheesh... I don't use woo to explain the rational

instead of to all possible intelligible worlds.

This is precisely what i mean in my above comment.

What are intelligible worlds. The only world i know is the physical ball of rock on which we live

Any world that isn't intelligible definitionally includes God.

Please provide a link to this definition

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is not logical possibility but logical necessity.

Disagree. If you have an argument for why you believe that to be the case, please make it. At this point, we have yet another unshared premise - something you believe is necessarily true and which I claim MAY be contingently correct.

How exactly is multiverse uncaused?

I didn't say it was or that it even exists. I am saying that if if an uncaused cause can exist, it need not be conscious or a deity. Do you think otherwise? You seem to think that such a thing exists, but that it can't be a multiverse, but give no reason for that.

it's logical necessity.

You haven't made the case, just the claim.

This seems to be the case with everybody I engage in this discussion with, and there have been at least four in the last two weeks. The "arguments" are "impossible" and "absurd" for non theistic answers, but no reasons given. Those are incredulity fallacies, also sometimes ad lapidem fallacies: "Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence."

infinite regress is impossible, it is necessary for there to be a First Cause.

Same for you: you haven't made the case, just the claim. Consider that an unshared premise - you believe it, I don't.

Every time you speak of "unshared premises", you are talking about whether a premise has more or less popular support.

I'm talking about an argument beginning with a premise the reader doesn't accept as fact. You're talking about popularity.

I think that this discussion has run its course. You aren't interested in my points about claims needing to be supported rather than expressed as incredulity as you've just done again, and I'm not interested in your points regarding whatever it is that you think motion has to do with the KCA or the origin of the universe, or what you're saying about popularity, so I respectfully choose to disengage. I'm not interested in pulling out of you what you mean or why you think those things are relevant to this discussion, nor in further identifying incredulity fallacies, since the words have had no impact to date. You just keep repeating what seems impossible to YOU. That's irrelevant to others if you can't make an argument in support of that.

 

[Mister Emu]

Before you go one to something else, which of those four statements do you disagree with? And why? Specifically.

1, 3 and 4. Provisionally.

1. Whether an argument is sound has nothing to do with whether I accept it or my perception of reality. It is either sound or not by virtue of its objective relationship to reality, with or without any or all sentient acceptance of it.

3. See above.

4. We can analyze concepts and constructs and know the premises are true because we have defined the concept or construct. Not every argument is necessarily tied to our uncertain ability to determine objective reality.

After you, i was commenting on your claim

Show you what? That making arguments based on contradictory claims is self-defeating?

Wrong it's a fundamental law of science

Cause and effect is an essential component to the philosophy behind science. It is one of the the laws of intelligible reality that allows science to exist at all.

I am meaning what i say

Which is?

And that explains much thanks

Well, I'm glad you begin to understand. So now we can discuss chaos as unintelligibility or without identity.

BTW, you are, at this moment moving at around 1.3 million mph. You cannot feel it yet you are moving

What do you believe the relevance of this to be?

The law of identity is a logical construct. Logic is a human endeavour

What was the largest mountain before humans discovered Mt. Everest?
Mt. Everest.

No it isn't, it's your belief.

Explain how to have meaning without identity, please.

Perhaps you need to write a paper on it and present it for peer review

I would, but Aristotle beat me to it by... something over 2000 years.

Well yes ... Sheesh... I don't use woo to explain the rational

Suggesting that just "woo" we have a logical world is precisely what you're doing.

 

[paradox]

Disagree. If you have an argument for why you believe that to be the case, please make it. At this point, we have yet another unshared premise - something you believe is necessarily true and which I claim MAY be contingently correct.

You haven't made the case, just the claim.

It seem you didn't read the definition of "logical necessity"?

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

Go ahead and tell me how exactly does unmoved mover fail?
My claim is supported by formal logic and is thus not just a claim, if you want to prove it's just a claim make unmoved mover fail.

I didn't say it was or that it even exists. I am saying that if if an uncaused cause can exist, it need not be conscious or a deity. Do you think otherwise? You seem to think that such a thing exists, but that it can't be a multiverse, but give no reason for that.

I did not say that multiverse is not possibility, in fact you said that multiverse is possibility but failed to say how could multiverse be uncaused.

What you're stating here is that if multiverse is not possibility then god is also not possibility, which is a fallacy since one has nothing to do with the other.

This seems to be the case with everybody I engage in this discussion with, and there have been at least four in the last two weeks.

Then it must be something wrong with you rather than others, why do you think that you must be correct just because it's you?

 

[ChristineM]

Show you what? That making arguments based on contradictory claims is self-defeating?

You do realise what you just did there?
Ok so you cannot justify your claim, attemt to shift it on to me then.. Oh never mind

Cause and effect is an essential component to the philosophy behind science. It is one of the the laws of intelligible reality that allows science to exist at all.

Yes and it did not fully exist until 10e-28 of a second after the bb.

Oh and it doesn't hold in QM.

Which is?

You read it , you commented on it by trying to change it. You think im going to repeat it so you can try and change it again? No thanks

Well, I'm glad you begin to understand. So now we can discuss chaos as unintelligibility or without identity.

I think my sarcasm fell on stony ground

What do you believe the relevance of this to be?

You made a statement regarding your interpretation of chaos to which it is highly relevant.

What was the largest mountain before humans discovered Mt. Everest?
Mt. Everest.

What do you believe the relevance of this to be?

Explain how to have meaning without identity, please.

This is what i have been trying to tell you for several days and you will mot accept it. Prior to 10e-43 of a second following the bb all bets are off. Yet Kalam believed he knew of events and you agree with the argument.

I would, but Aristotle beat me to it by... something over 2000 years.

And never had it peer reviewed.

Suggesting that just "woo" we have a logical world is precisely what you're doing.

Check the mirror...

Im done i see no point in using known cosmology to counter woo when you simply ignore it

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It seem you didn't read the definition of "logical necessity"?

It doesn't need defining. It's self-explanatory. You haven't made the case that an uncaused cause is a logical necessity. I've told you that before. It doesn't seem to matter to you, since you don't then try to rectify that, but ignore it and repeat yourself.

Go ahead and tell me how exactly does unmoved mover fail?

We've done this already. Why are we doing it again? You don't seem to understand the difference between an unmoved mover necessarily existing and the possibility of one. It's only the former that I am objecting to, not the latter. The hypothesis of an unmoved mover is acceptable. It is a logical possibility. Your claim that it is a logical necessity is what fails, and it will until you can demonstrate that one must exist with more than mere assertion.

Please try to focus on that comment and assimilate it. Please don't let it be the case that we go down this road again. I'm being more tolerant of that in you than most because of you good nature, but I've already told three other KCA apologists that we're done for dong exactly that. One of them is also a nice guy, and I actually discussed this KCA matter with him on at least two different threads along with the evidence for resurrection, but eventually got tired of making no progress and having words ignored.

The other two, who made the same mistake of simply repeatedly asserting things to be true and expecting that that would be good enough, were also much less pleasant to have a discussion with, and so, those didn't last as long. I'm just about through here as well.

you said that multiverse is possibility but failed to say how could multiverse be uncaused.

And I told you why that was irrelevant. Do you not recall? I gave you an analogy from biology to illustrate. You didn't comment, which functions as tacit assent, although I think if you had answered, you probably would have disagreed, and we might have resolved this then. But you didn't, and here we are again, with you addressing an issue already resolved for lack of a rebuttal or any other kind of comment acknowledging that you read and understood the words from you.

I'm sure that you are doing the best can, and in good faith, but it simply isn't interesting for me to do this and have you keep disregarding rebuttals, repeating points previously refuted, and answering questions already answered.

What you're stating here is that if multiverse is not possibility then god is also not possibility, which is a fallacy since one has nothing to do with the other.

No, I am not. I am saying that arguments against a multiverse are also arguments against a god. I've seen many. You have no evidence for a multiverse. Well, it's the same evidence theists invoke but with a different conclusion - reality is here, and may have had a conscious or an unconscious cause. The theist world say that reality definitely has a cause, and that it is conscious.

why do you think that you must be correct just because it's you?

I think I've answered that as well already, but let's try again: Because I recognize the same logically fallacy being committed by all of them (KCA apologists) including you: That's impossible. That's absurd. My belief is logically necessary. Nope. Not because anybody says so, but because one is demonstrably correct. There needs to be a compelling argument to go with those statements if one wants to convince somebody who doesn't believe by faith.

 

[paradox]

It doesn't need defining. It's self-explanatory.

That's where you make mistakes, you self-explain something which is already well defined.

No, I am not. I am saying that arguments against a multiverse are also arguments against a god.

That's right, you've just reconfirmed what I said:

What you're stating here is that if multiverse is not possibility then god is also not possibility, which is a fallacy since one has nothing to do with the other.

You treat god as if you would treat multiverse but multiverse unlike god isn't even supported by unmoved mover, unlike god multiverse is material and thus is subject to cause.

Because I recognize the same logically fallacy being committed by all of them (KCA apologists) including you: That's impossible. That's absurd. My belief is logically necessary. Nope. Not because anybody says so
...
There needs to be a compelling argument to go with those statements if one wants to convince somebody who doesn't believe by faith.

Ah ok, you treat me the same way you treated somebody else in the past based on your experience rather than to discuss on actual arguments. I see.

 

[ppp]

1, 3 and 4. Provisionally.

1. Whether an argument is sound has nothing to do with whether I accept it or my perception of reality. It is either sound or not by virtue of its objective relationship to reality, with or without any or all sentient acceptance of it.

Bob understands the rules of logic perfectly. He is presented with two premises and a conclusion. He accepts the conclusion. The structure of the argument is valid. He judges the argument to be sound.

Is he right? Is the conclusion false? I contend that the answers can be yes, and yes. There is nothing necessarily true about a sound argument. It is just the most reliable tool that we

4. We can analyze concepts and constructs and know the premises are true because we have defined the concept or construct. Not every argument is necessarily tied to our uncertain ability to determine objective reality.

I agree. And I think I made a provision earlier for esoteric constructs. (If I didnt that was an oversight and I apologize) You can know that you are happy. I can know that I label that thing on my desk a 'mug'. I can know that married bachelors are definitional incompatible. But I cannot know that married people exist, or that bachelors exist without a connection to objective reality.

Objective reality matters in determining soundness, but humans are the lynchpin. Us and all our merits and faults.

 

[Mister Emu]

There is nothing necessarily true about a sound argument.

The definition of sound, though, is to be true.

Necessary, has a philosophical meaning that I want to make sure of what you're using. Do you mean necessary in the sense of modal logic?

I agree. And I think I made a provision earlier for esoteric constructs. (If I didnt that was an oversight and I apologize)

If I missed it, I apologize.

I don't think we are really far apart. I'm just pedantic about precision in language.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

The only thing Kalam proves, is how desperate apologists will happily clinge to anything - including fallacy infested PRATTs like Kalam - to try and defend their dogmatic beliefs.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That is indeed correct, we don't know.

But unmoved mover remains unchallenged.

If you mean 'not falsified' then sure.

 

[ppp]

The definition of sound, though, is to be true.

Only in the casual sense.

All humans are mortal.
Mark Hamill is a human.
Therefore Mark Hamill is mortal.

The structure is valid, and I accept the premises, therefore I call the conclusion true. But I could still be wrong about either premise.

Suppose there are humans who never die? Suppose that Hamill is a secret elf?

[Rhetorical questions]
Is the argument still sound? Is it sound until we find out that Hamill is from Rivendell? Is it sound if we never find out?

If the soundness is dependent on the impossibility of the premises being wrong, then there are no sound arguments.

If I missed it, I apologize.

I don't think we are really far apart. I'm just pedantic about precision in language.

No worries. We just want to be technically correct
Which is, of course, the best type of correct.

 

[paradox]

Only in the casual sense.

All humans are mortal.
Mark Hamill is a human.
Therefore Mark Hamill is mortal.

The structure is valid, and I accept the premises, therefore I call the conclusion true. But I could still be wrong about either premise.

Suppose there are humans who never die? Suppose that Hamill is a secret elf?

Supposing that there is a human who is a secret elf is nothing else but Agrippan trillema:
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

 

[ppp]

Supposing that there is a human who is a secret elf is nothing else but Agrippan trillema:
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

Are you able to explain why you think that? Or are you just back to pasting random links?

 

[paradox]

Are you able to explain why you think that? Or are you just back to pasting random links?

It's not random link.

If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof.

It is truth that humans are mortal.
But you said what if there is a secret elf? - thus asserting a possibility of an immortal human.
What you do is asking for proof that a secret elf does not exist in order to consider the actual proof of humans being mortal.
And even if one secret elf is not found you may come out with, what if there is a human living on another planet that is immortal etc etc etc..

This is simply put rejection of a proof by asking for yet another proof.