Sure. . Yep, that's right, although yours is your God. All I stated is that you cannot claim it is a mind or an abstract object because it has not been established these things actually exist. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. But they believe God exists and (at least I think) they believe He has libertarian freedom. The universe cannot be included because it began to exist. What causes this contingent being to exist must be a set that contains either only contingent beings or a set t… But my goal here is to show that even if I concede all of that is wrong.”\\\ — Whoa! Likewise, you could never cause your decision to use cap or fedora if you were frozen timelessly. A non-mechanistic agent on the other hand is an agent that can change its mind and can decide to do something different. The Big Bang demonstrates just that. This is slightly confusing so let me explain it again. But the point remains that such a being as described by this argument must exist” 2. What I’m challenging here is the claim that the causal principle — in the sense of efficiency — is metaphysically necessary — and not merely nomological. IF spontaneous events can occur, the possibility of insufficient but necessary non-personal causes is certain. Debunking "The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Debunked" by atheist "Rationality Rules" Popular atheist YouTuber "Rationality Rules" tried stepping on the famous Kalaam Cosmological Argument popularised in recent time by Christian William Lane Craig and ended up stepping on himself. "(Oh, so mere "possibility" is all that's needed? Skip to main content. Or perhaps you think there is no problem with the Kalam being contingent on other arguments for God. It is merely an abstraction we use to say something can or cannot do something. It seems to assume it was there waiting continuously (therefore, temporally) to interrupt such state. That is, just because our Minkowski space began, doesn’t entail a hyperspace could not have existed prior to it and be its efficient cause. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. But there are not necessarily sequenced. But that’s clearly not the case; this is not speculative. . Plus, it also allows the Euclidean spatial dimensions of Hawking-Hartle to exist timelessly and spontaneously cause Lorentzian space to exist (without requiring a personal cause). Possibilities come cheap. How could it be? But again: this would only be relevant if infinite regress were possible. My face is hurting from all the facepalming I’ve been doing throughout watching this dude’s videos. –> https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2017/in-what-sense-is-it-impossible-for-the-universe-to-come-from-nothing In other words, dualism makes libertarian free will possible (but LFW doesn’t logically flow from it), but dualism DOES logically follow from libertarian free will. the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Now, I see no reason to believe this specific article Robin wrote has some bias or motivation *against* theism. The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.It is named after the kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which its key ideas originated.It was popularized in the western world by William Lane Craig in his book, The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979).. If it had at least one property, it wouldn’t be anything. There are Christian philosophers who are physicalists such as Peter Van Inwagen. ian,Welcome to Debunking Christianity. Because has reasons to lie, does that mean the car is not economical and bla bla? You must be kidding, right? You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. ­Now, I should not even address your arguments against the “mother universe” since they have nothing to do with my points. There would be an infinite number of them. You can’t dictate whether causality will hold or not. And if the probability is zero, then it will never produce the effect. It could be something totally different from our universe. You've gone through and rewritten it for calvindude clear enough that a drooling retard could understand it. . . But you see the problem? Indeed. And I’ve already responded to that. If it’s not a zero probability, then given infinite past time, it will be actualized. How is this not ad hoc? You attacked my argument as if I was objecting to the cause being immaterial, when in reality I was objecting to the inane claim that it must be a mind or an abstract object. \\\” If the decision and act are simultaneous with the beginning of time, then there is no reason to talk about interrupting any timeless state; what there is, simply, is a first moment when causal power is exerted.”\\\ — The event then occurs in an indeterminate manner.”\\ — So when did the sufficient causes come in place? Because the KCA relies on the premise that a physical law from within the universe must apply to the universe itself. What is the fallacy of equivocation? However, spontaneous events have necessary, but not sufficient causes, that is, the hyperspace contains the power that is necessary for the event to occur. . Infinite! The Case For Nero Caesar Being The Beast Of Revelation, Promoting Civil Discourse Between YECs, OECs, and ECs, The Historical Reliability Of The New Testament. I would not say that God’s (nor anyone elses’) decisions are “spontaneous”. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. This is another potential example, by the way, that is an opponent of the “mind or abstract object”. That is, he used the word ‘infinite’ here. One still has to explain what triggered the will to create, otherwise it would not even leave such state. Unfortunately, I think his skull will always be just a tad to thick for reason to squeeze its way through to his brain. . It's POSSIBLE that exbeliever is really a Mormon and he's just pretending to be an atheist because he gets his kicks out of it (and all his statements to deny this would just be more proof of how much he gets his kicks out of it). That’s why none of the arguments for free will (like Tim Stratton’s “FreeThinking Argument”) are empirical in nature. This is an obvious straw man! The argument Craig presented against ‘something from nothing’ in that article is that if there were ever nothing and then a universe “after it”, then there was the potential for the universe to exist, but “potential” is not nothing, so there was always something. That would be a valid response in the sense that it would not be informally fallacious. Let’s take option 1: Every time the top make a complete revolution a Universe is spawned. The claim of the first premise is “whatever begins to exist had a cause.” It’s often demonstrated by listing the causal principle “something cannot come from nothing,” or ex nihilo, nihilo fit. Regarding the argument from personal causation: it doesn’t support the causal principle at all. Given that hyperspace is just a realm of abstract mathematics, and not a real concrete entity, and given that undifferentiated time is just sequence or indices (like the letters of the alphabet; A, B, C, D, E), your view doesn’t avoid the problems the traditional Mother Universe is plagued with. So a good many philosophers will say that all causation is really ultimately simultaneous.”. Moreover, in the Pluto analogy, it is possible, at least in principle, to look for other empirical evidence that may life exist there. :-) No one I've read has defined it yet without a self-referential definition (such as the idea of motion, which again is an object with velocity, velocity being distance/time. . A cosmological argument, in natural theology and natural philosophy (not cosmology), is an argument in which the existence of God is inferred from alleged facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects. I will say whether it will hold or not. Hence there is no “time, and then he chooses that time will exist” as you put it. BOOK REVIEW: “Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism” by Tim Stratton, BOOK REVIEW: “The Resurrection Of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach” by Michael Licona, A Look At Kirk MacGregor’s Argument For Middle Knowledge. I’ve already read some parts of your other post regarding the moral argument and I think it would be worth pointing out the problems with it (particularly the defense of premise 2). An illustration of a magnifying glass. RR says “. Arguments for God’s Existence Debunked. This follows because we have no reason to believe Substance-Dualism or Platonism is true. It's POSSIBLE that George Bush is listening in on your phone-line right now! But I won't because I understood you exactly (see below). The first of the three (which I also defend in my own Kalam writings) is that nothing can come from nothing because nothing has no causal properties. But then you’re equivocating material and efficient causes here. . There are so many problems with your refutation that it would take me the whole day to refute point by point. The yniverse has as much proof as pink unicorns on Pluto AND as much proof as the existence of the Christian God.10) What you missed was that I was not attempting to prove that a yniverse existed, but only that it is another possibility that is just as plausible as the Christian belief in God.11) You wrote, "Tell me again why this is more rational than believing in God? All you’ve done in your previous comment is reassert (A). Likewise, you said: "[God is]with all power (but doesn’t exercise it like we would if we saw a burning child)". I don’t know why it is so hard for proponents of the Kalam to understand that. That’s what you said. On this view God existed literally before creation… For discussion of this alternative see my Time and Eternity.”, Reasonable Faith (pp. Does that mean we should throw out everything he says? Given that everything that has a beginning has something that caused it to come into being, and since Big Bang cosmology, the second law of thermodynamics, and the two arguments against actual infinites establish that the universe came into being out of nothing a finite time ago, it follows that a cause transcendent to matter, energy, space, and time must have caused matter, energy, space, and time (i.e the universe) to come into existence. So, it is not worth pursuing this point any further. . So, I hope the other theistic arguments for the cause being personal are more convincing than this one. You: “Indeed. \\\” I’m not convinced the arguments against an infinite past are successful. Therefore, God is Chinese”. But the relevant point which I’m trying to make is that free will doesn’t make any difference to timeless beings: free or not, the exertion of power only takes place when time already exists. \\”No, I’m not committing the same mistake Krauss committed. FREE WILL I’m confused. . ” Nothingness is not an “it”. “What time? This being that is demonstrated to exist by this argument is consistent with The Christian God. I discovered a YouTuber called “Rationality Rules” very recently. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. Well even if it takes a very very long time to spin, after infinite years how many universes would there be? You wrote \\\”there is no reason to think free will exists, and thus no reason to infer the cause possesses free will since we’ve never observed such thing in the world.”\\\ — But if my argument is sound then there is good reason to believe at least one being has free will; God. FREE WILL . However, in every defense of The Kalam Cosmological Argument I’ve ever heard given, this is not where the argument stops. And rather than repeat myself for the umpteenth time, I’ll just advise you to go back and read my previous comments. Non-Metric Time is really the only element of this model that’s intelligible, but as I’ve argued, that’s a weakness of it, and pretty much the only area in which it can be falsified. Again, there are two others that I address in other Kalam blog posts, not to mention my book “The Case For The One True God”. In addition, when we don’t have direct access to the cause, the only way to falsify it is by using metaphysical and logical arguments. Sorry for the grammatical errors. It would be something. No, on second thought, don't read anything that I've written. . So, the problem is that we can’t even use statistical probability here, given that the effect is spontaneous and indeterministic. That’s what this is here for. . Why? And here are some of the problems with that which I address in the above blog posts. We can remove the “decision” (or will) part and simply add that there is an exertion of causal power simultaneously with the first moment and the creation of the universe. The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Debunked (The First Cause Argument - Refuted) - Duration: 8:46. This obviously assume metric time — since there is a sequence of events going to the infinite past. Moreover, I’m not convinced at all that the causal principle is metaphysical rather than nomological (i.e., a law derived from the physical world). Assuming they take the time to read lengthy threads like this one, which I’ve recently come to learn that some actually do! But I’m denying this; I’m saying there is no such sequence of events going to the infinite past. It doesn’t establish this meta-universe with a weird unknown version of space unless, again, you beg the question against theism. FINAL THOUGHT BEFORE ENDING THIS COMMENT You: “It is not like God could have timelessly chosen not to create the universe.”— If one asserts something cannot come FROM nothing, then they are saying something must come FROM something else (i.e a cause). If it’s the former, then it doesn’t matter what number you put on it. . I usually just use the abductive argument between abstract objects and unembodied minds because it’s quicker to verbally flesh out. calvindude,If you would kindly reread my post instead of proving yet again what a humorous little idiot you are, you would have seen that I was not being nearly that existential. It’s details the many criticisms of the argument, all in one place: If it is possible, the KCA fails.My explanation of the origin of the unverse is "[*shrug*]." Ec Nihil Nihil Fit As you said in your original post: “There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects or unembodied minds” If you argue spontaneity has never been observed in reality, then I can also argue free will has never been observed in reality. In other words, the source of power exists eternally and only gives rise to a spontaneous effect at the first moment in time because, unlike ordinary impersonal causal relationships, the effect must not be “present” eternally (remember, it is not an ordinary causal relationship, but one that involves uncaused — in the sense of efficiency — events). "I never suggested there was any proof of a yniverse. . FREE WILL 3. Rather, to say “no one is at the door” means that “There is not someone at the door”. Immaterial – It could be, actually. And again, this is not the only argument for the personhood of the universe’s cause so I don’t even need to hang my hat on that. One possibility is that the exertion of power is spontaneous. Making the decision was itself the introduction of time. . There are strong arguments to believe this is false (and certainly not a metaphysical or logical law), but my goal here was just to clarify this point. But how is this different from mine? I can’t read minds after all. Craig didn’t present any argument against the strict or broad logical impossibility of the latter. Loading... Unsubscribe from MrTweej? Thus, RR says that steps 2 and 3 of the argument employ the same words with different meanings. I’m really interested in knowing what is this non-empirical argument. You stated that it doesn’t matter if we don’t have free will, because the Kalam proves the cause must possess free will. This physical state could possess the timeless potential that would be actualized simultaneously with the first instant of time and, at the same moment, would cause time. . First there is time, and then he chooses that time will exist? Potential things are by definition not actual; “potential” is just a word we chose to describe when X or Y can do something. The first moment WAS the interruption of the timeless state. It is certainly true that if the universe changed form spontaneously at the Big Bang from a previous Minkowski space, then it came from something else (a material cause), but was not caused (no efficient cause) since it changed spontaneously. I get the impression here that you do not believe time can be defined. “1: Either an abstract object or an unembodied mind caused the universe. After sleeping on it, I realized the simplicity of what I missed. Moreover, Undifferentiated time is just sequence or indices, unlike the metric time that does move or change in equal intervals. Or maybe there’s an undiscovered pool of liquid deep underground on Pluto that served as the primordial soup. A and B can be at the same time – can be simultaneous – but which way do you draw the line of causal influence? My bad. \\\”Ok, would you mind shortly saying what are the other two arguments in favor of the Causal Principle? I would not say the hyperspace is spiritual. It’s not necessarily a “space”.

cosmological argument debunked

Makita 18v Trimmer Dur181z, Physician Executive Resume, Financial Literacy Essay Examples, Cumin Meaning In Arabic, Importance Of Cloud Computing, Why Are My Maple Leaves Turning Black, Middle School Strategic Plan, Good Manners Quotes For Students, Bbq Drip Tray 66cm, Fennel Seeds In Russian, Can Dogs Give You Anxiety, Shortbread Crust Fruit Pizza,
cosmological argument debunked 2020