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

[Mister Emu]

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.

My apologies for my inability to demonstrate to you why what I'm saying is relevant.

If you'd like to pick it up again at any time, I'm willing to attempt a different approach. I was trying to find some base level of common ground, but it seems I've only confused and frustrated you because I didn't explain how hopeful common ground prospects connected to each other or the end result.

To start with, if you re-engage, motion is change. The reason P1 in Kalam was refined from "anything that exists has a cause" to "begins to exist" is to more precisely highlight the fact of change occurring. P1 springs from the philosophy of motion.

 

[ppp]

But you said what if there is a secret elf? - thus asserting a possibility of an immortal human.

Incorrect.

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.

Incorrect.

Two strikes and you are out.

 

[paradox]

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Two strikes and you are out.

If it's indeed incorrect then you wouldn't have a reason to keep your response secret.

 

[ppp]

If it's indeed incorrect then you wouldn't have a reason to keep your response secret.

The secret being that I rarely read past 2 incorrect statements. Especially when they are boring. I am just too lazy.

 

[Mister Emu]

You do realise what you just did there?

Things get lost in the chain of discussion. I thought this line of quotes was about my comment that making arguments from the pre-existence of the universe while also making arguments from nothing existing prior to the universe is incoherent. To which you replied 'there goes Kalam'.

I'm confused about what you are asking for when you requested I show you firs and I usually make an attempt to understand what you've said or asked. My asking if that is what you meant is an invitation to correct me if I'm wrong. You've taken umbrage with my asking if you meant show you that contradictions are incoherent, so I'll ask again. What is it that you're looking for me to show you before you'd be willing to show how Kalam's demise follows from contradictions being incoherent?

Oh and it doesn't hold in QM.

I was watching a video by Sabine Hossenfelder related to this, and I discovered that I owe you an apology for some confusion. I did not know that chaos has an operational definition in physics, while I was using it in a much more informal sense, the absence of logic.

I've seen arguments for indefinite causality in QM, which I'm not sure is the same thing as a lack of causality. Could you explain further so I can understand better?

I think my sarcasm fell on stony ground

Sorry. Yes, when I said chaotic movement, I meant movement without identity. Which is every sort of movement and no movement at the same time. It's incoherent nonsense. Which is what I've been trying to impress upon you, that identity is fundamental to intelligibility.

As noted above, I know that there is a definition of chaos in physics that doesn't comport with this.

What do you believe the relevance of this to be?

That human endeavors can and do discover objective truths that exist irrespective of that endeavor.

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.

Prior to whatever nano-micro second after the BB all your knowledge of the physical world is off. That doesn't touch the metaphysical rules of all possible existences.

If you're going to suggest that we arose out of some formless, meaningless, identity-less nothing, why would anyone accept that? You need to offer something that works, at the least.

Check the mirror

You just said that "all bets are off" with regard to the fundamental idea of meaning.

 

[Mister Emu]

Is the argument still sound?

No, and it never was.

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

No; because the soundness of an argument is not based on whether we know, in the strictest of senses, it to be sound.

 

[ChristineM]

Things get lost in the chain of discussion.

Im lost, its been a few days and much has happened, not sure where we were up to.

What is it that you're looking for me to show you before you'd be willing to show how Kalam's demise follows from contradictions being incoherent?

How could it be known before anything could be known what conditions existed for Kalam to make his assumption. Please refer to my post #4

I was watching a video by Sabine Hossenfelder

I don't rate Sabine, she has good ideas but takes them in untestable directions then claims victory

I owe you an apology for some confusion

Yes and that's where the difference lies. I am using hard, evidenced physics. While you appear to be more into philosophy

Could you explain further so I can understand better?

I thought I'd explained. Prior to 10e-43 od a second nothing is known. All that is known, including the fundimental laws of physics formed after that point in time

, I know that there is a definition of chaos in physics that doesn't comport with this.

The physical definition is all that can comport with the physical universe

That human endeavors can and do discover objective truths that exist irrespective of that endeavor.

Yes.

Prior to whatever nano-micro second after the BB all your knowledge of the physical world is off. That doesn't touch the metaphysical rules of all possible existences.

Metaphysics is irrelevant. Physics, cosmology, astrophysics, particle physics and quantum mechanics are what it's all about here.

If you're going to suggest that we arose out of some formless, meaningless, identity-less nothing, why would anyone accept that?

Accept it or not, its a possibility, not one i subscribe to but.. well we just do not know.

You need to offer something that works, at the least.

We are here so something worked, as i keep repeating, what that something is is unknown. Some people accept that and think that possibly, at some point in the future we will know. While some people think not knowing s mot an alternative so make up scenarios to fill in the blank space

You just said that "all bets are off" with regard to the fundamental idea of meaning.

Yes, prior to 10e-43 of a second, all bets are off

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

It does not prove a creator. It does not even try to.

But it does prove that kangaroos are cool. That is one of the better polls that I have seen.

 

[ppp]

No, and it never was.


No; because the soundness of an argument is not based on whether we know, in the strictest of senses, it to be sound.

Under what conditions am I rationally justified in calling an argument sound?

 

[Mister Emu]

How could it be known before anything could be known what conditions existed for Kalam to make his assumption.

The limits of physics knowledge are not the limits of knowledge. Things that are necessary for an intelligible world are necessary regardless of the conditions before the Big Bang, because we know we have an intelligible universe.

We can know that it wasn't nothingness, because there would be nothing for nothing to become, nothing for it to change into. We know it had stable identity, because it was whatever it was, and there was a change that had identity such that it coherently lead to our universe. Since there was identity, all of logic plays, so everything we can prove with conceptual logic is true.

Why do you assume that knowledge ends with what is physical?

I don't rate Sabine

I agree with your criticism, she declares herself correct without proving it, because her answer suits her assumptions. It seems that her positions are more alternative possibilities instead of demonstrated accurate portrayals.

I still enjoy the counter point she offers though.

Yes and that's where the difference lies. I am using hard, evidenced physics. While you appear to be more into philosophy

Kalam is a philosophical argument.

I thought I'd explained. Prior to 10e-43 od a second nothing is known.

No, I meant causality not existing or holding up in QM. I have heard claims of retro causality (like the delayed choice quantum eraser experiments), indefinite causality as in the quantum switch experiments), but that all suggests to me some sort of causality that we either don't understand the mechanism of or are incapable of accessing all of the information for.

I've got little to no reason to believe that our perceptions of time and space are the end of inquiry.

 

[Mister Emu]

Sorry about the split post, running it from my phone at work...

The physical definition is all that can comport with the physical universe

Well yes, the metaphysical definition doesn't comport with this or any world, which is the point.

There is no existence without the rules of identity. It is a metaphysical necessity.

Metaphysics is irrelevant.

Metaphysics govern physics, they are the substrate that physics can operate from, and eminently relevant.

We are here so something worked, as i keep repeating

Exactly, so we know it is something that worked/works. That tells us a lot.

Yes, prior to 10e-43 of a second, all bets are off

All bets[of rationality] being off is textbook woo. You wouldn't accept that as an argument for anything else. It could apply to magic elves pulling us toward the ground, and you just think you see gravity as a physical phenomenon, as much as the source of the BB prior to x.

All bets are off is an anti-thought, the death of knowledge as a concept.

 

[Mister Emu]

Under what conditions am I rationally justified in calling an argument sound?

With concepts, you can be absolutely justified.

For things that rely on human perception, you have to find the level of certainty, or implausiblity of negation, you are comfortable with.

I generally view intersuvjectively verified things as knowledge, the sciences and such, as well as direct personal experience as sufficient.

 

[ppp]

With concepts, you can be absolutely justified.

If I understand you correctly, I agree. I think that you mean labels and logical analysis.

For things that rely on human perception, you have to find the level of certainty, or implausiblity of negation, you are comfortable with.

What a given person is comfortable may simply be desire. Or deductive certainly applied to reality; which as far as I can tell is impossible. Have we no methods for achieving maximal reliability without falling back to our feelings or waiting for access to the numina?

I generally view intersuvjectively verified things as knowledge, the sciences and such, as well as direct personal experience as sufficient.

I agree with the former. The latter is only sufficient in certain condition. IMHO. I would trust my direct personal experience of a dog. Or a cheesecake. I would not trust my direct personal experience of Pegasus. Or spoo.

 

[ChristineM]

The limits of physics knowledge are not the limits of knowledge.

True but thinking about something and making your mind up based on personal though is not knowledge

Things that are necessary for an intelligible world are necessary regardless of the conditions before the Big Bang, because we know we have an intelligible universe.

Are they? You have evidence of this? Conditions are unknown prior to the bb.

We can know that it wasn't nothingness,

We cannot know that but we can guess.

We know it had stable identity,

Again, we cannot know that

With concepts, you can be absolutely justified.

For things that rely on human perception, you have to find the level of certainty, or implausiblity of negation, you are comfortable with.

I generally view intersuvjectively verified things as knowledge, the sciences and such, as well as direct personal experience as sufficient.

I don't, i tend to view hard evidence as valid. Anyone can think of anything and impose their own subjective experience on it to form their knowledge.

Since there was identity

Was there?

Why do you assume that knowledge ends with what is physical?

Because supernatural is not evidenced knowledge but imagination

Kalam is a philosophical argument.

Then it is useless to argue with the practical

 

[ChristineM]

Well yes, the metaphysical definition doesn't comport with this or any world,

Bingo

There is no existence without the rules of identity. It is a metaphysical necessity.

And therefore irrelevant

Metaphysics govern physics, they are the substrate that physics can operate from, and eminently relevant.

Ehm no that's what philosophy and metaphysics says to gain personal credibility. Physics is governed by the scientific method, not art.

Exactly, so we know it is something that worked/works. That tells us a lot.

But we do not know what. And making "it must be _____ because ____ is total nonsense

All bets[of rationality] being off is textbook woo. You wouldn't accept that as an argument for anything else.

Actually i would accept that for anything that is unknown. Of course you eould not argue about what is unknown, you would simply say "its unknown... Oh right, its what I've been doing.

It could apply to magic elves pulling us toward the ground, and you just think you see gravity as a physical phenomenon, as much as the source of the BB prior to x.

No it couldn't. Thst is a strawman

All bets are off is an anti-thought, the death of knowledge as a concept.

Completely wrong, it's a reason to investigate and learn... As those cosmologists at the perimeter institute do.

 

[Mister Emu]

Have we no methods for achieving maximal reliability without falling back to our feelings or waiting for access to the numina?

Yes, we, bound by our finitude, cannot reach maximal epistemological certainty of objective facts beyond our own thinking existence.

The latter is only sufficient in certain condition. IMHO.

What conditions suitably alter the facts such that you can reject one subjective experience of events but not another? Even the intersubjectively verified information is bound by your own experience of that verification.

 

[ppp]

Yes, we, bound by our finitude, cannot reach maximal epistemological certainty of objective facts beyond our own thinking existence.

I do not know what that means.

What conditions suitably alter the facts such that you can reject one subjective experience of events but not another? Even the intersubjectively verified information is bound by your own experience of that verification.

Not reject a subjective experience. But reject the explanation for a subjective experience. If you pray to Zeus for a lightening bolt and a lightening bolt strikes the ground that is insufficient reason to accept Zeus as the cause.

 

[Link]

Salam

@firedragon I found the booklet, in the readings, was "Is the Concept of God Coherent", the three readings were online and one of them is this pdf link:

Microsoft Word - Divineattributes.doc (alevelphilosophy.co.uk)

Omnipotence (section has the relevant)

This also is another reading with the actual arguments made:

Microsoft Word - Divineattributescoherent.doc (alevelphilosophy.co.uk)

 

[firedragon]

Salam

@firedragon I found the booklet, in the readings, was "Is the Concept of God Coherent", the three readings were online and one of them is this pdf link:

Microsoft Word - Divineattributes.doc (alevelphilosophy.co.uk)

Omnipotence (section has the relevant)

This also is another reading with the actual arguments made:

Microsoft Word - Divineattributescoherent.doc (alevelphilosophy.co.uk)

He is not an atheist scholar who makes the argument about God being able to create a stone he cannot life my brother. He is making the exact same argument I was making.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Link]

The Section I will quote here:

OMNIPOTENCE

Omnipotence and the stone paradox

Can God create a stone that he can’t lift it? If he can, then he will not be able to lift the stone. But otherwise, he can’t create such a stone. Either way, it seems, there is something God cannot do. If there is something God can’t do, then God isn’t omnipotent. This famous paradox makes an assumption we should question: it presupposes the possibility of something logically impossible. ‘The power to create a stone an omnipotent being can’t lift’ is logically incoherent, so it’s not a possible power. If God lacks it, God still doesn’t lack any possible power. Alternatively, we may allow that God could create such a stone, but in that case, the stone is, by definition, impossible to lift (clearly it will not be the stone’s weight that prevents its being lifted by God, so it must be some other, essential attribute). If God lacks the power to lift a stone it is logically impossible to lift, there is still no power God lacks. Doing what God can’t How should we understand ‘omnipotence’? Is it ‘the power to do whatever it is logically possible to do’? I can go jogging, which shows it is a logically possible act, but God can’t. So perhaps omnipotence is ‘the power to do whatever it is possible for a perfect being (or the greatest possible being) to do’. One interpretation of this is ‘maximal power’ – it is not possible for any being to have more power overall than an omnipotent being. A different response says that God possesses every power it is logically possible to possess. We need to take care in how we should identify and individuate powers. The power to go jogging isn’t a distinct power. It is a combination of free will and the power to move my body in accordance with that free will, but subject to laws of nature. But this is not a power God lacks. God can’t go jogging because God doesn’t have a body. But this is not a lack of power. God has free will and God can move bodies, including my body, in accordance with his will. God can even move bodies without regard to the laws of nature. So there is no logically possible power I have that God lacks.