IF YOU KNEW CHRISTIANITY WERE TRUE, WOULD YOU BECOME A CHRISTIAN? You just repeated yourself here but didn’t respond to my argument. You wrote \\\”there is no reason to think free will exists, and thus no reason to infer the cause possesses free will since weâve 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. I’m confused. The event then occurs in an indeterminate manner.”\\ — So when did the sufficient causes come in place? It starts out "I get it. Because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present.” 2. Unlike ordinary deterministic causes, there is no necessity here (the cause could explode or could not; there is no law saying it MUST explode). I can send you the pdf if you’re really interested. You’re pulling a Laurence Krauss and treating nothing as though it were something. . . I presented the argument and I’m waiting for the response. “If The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound then at least one thing is immaterial; the cause of the universe! 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). Heâs the cause of His own decision to create the universe” Nothingness is just that. I’m willing to accept it is composed of more things than just Minkowski spacetime. You’ve been trying to argue that this dilemma faces the theist as well, which leads to my next subheader. I’ll quote from that Mammen writes He said, “I see no conceptual incoherence in thinking that a cause and its effect can be simultaneous. Minds and abstract objects, according to most philosophers (see, PhilSurvey) and scientists, are not real independent entities. I’ve hyperlinked the titles to the articles for your convenience. Nothingness. which you can watch here. Me: “Well if thatâs true, then neither could your sci-fi hyperspace idea. Ok Option 2. But as the above Plutonian Bird illustration showed, you can conjure up just about any logically possible scenario to avoid a conclusion; in that case, the conclusion that Pluto is barren. . Therefore, if you’re picking a view about God based on the cosmological argument alone, your list of options consistent with the evidence is limited to just 4 options, Christianity being among them. Cosmological argument debunked william lane craig. So, there is nothing of substance to respond here.”\\ — Well, you could respond to when I asked how non-being can have potential. In my last response, I didn’t claim the Kalam doesn’t prove the cause must be immaterial. In other words, your definition boils down to: "time is a function of movement [an object moving a specific distance in a specific amount of TIME]". Sure, but we know it can’t be Minkowski space and ordinary laws because the arguments against infinite regress, entropy and the BGV theorem rule that out. So now not only are you invoking laws of physics no one is familiar with, a mysterious type of space no one is familiar with, now you’re invoking a special type of law of causality no one is familiar with! That's right, you've got *TIME* there. . It would only be relevant if I were accusing you of a formal fallacy, like affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent. . You’re using temporal terms here. I accept Nominalism about abstract objects and Physicalism about minds. From my perspective, you’re the one giving crappy arguments which caused me to facepalm more than once (seriously). The fact that it possess different laws is also supported by the arguments: if it obeyed the same laws and principles of our universe, it would suffer from the problem of entropy. This is why I said God decided to created, God acted to create, and creation came into being all at the same moment (the first moment). God was the cause of his own decisions just as we are causes of our own free choices. . So it will do no good to respond to the argument with âYeah, but immaterial things arenât real.â” However, as I pointed out in my website, “potential” is not a Platonic substance. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. I usually just use the abductive argument between abstract objects and unembodied minds because it’s quicker to verbally flesh out. In fact, I don’t believe there’s a single philosopher in the world without bias. I can’t read minds after all. You wrote \\”ÂRemember, this is just a metaphysical model Iâm building here. 3: therefore, it is an unembodied mind. How am I “equivocating material and efficient causes”? – How about you actually address what Craig said? I’m just going to write the rest of my response under subheaders to keep things straight since this is becoming very lengthy. It didn’t occur AFTER the timeless state. Pluto is barren.” I take affirmative “Yes. A classic which has recently been re-polished and re-popularized, it has withstood the test of time in its field. 100% Upvoted. . \\”Furthermore, thatâs what youâre doing here, too: youâre taking something weâre familiar with (minds), and then saying âwell, but it canât be a human mind, since such minds are not powerful enough to create a universeâ¦ such minds didnât exist foreverâ¦ such minds are finite and limitedâ¦ such minds are temporalâ¦ so it must be a different kind of mind: an infinitely powerful and eternal mind.â\\ — I’m not positing a different type of mind than the kind we’re familiar with. "9) I agree with this. . I really didn't have time to comment here, but when I am so horribly misunderstand I can't help but say something.Please visit and comment often. Rationality Rules says that in the second premise, what we mean by the term “Universe” is the scientific definition of universe (i.e all matter, energy, space, and time), whereas in the conclusion, we employ the colloquial usage of the term “Universe”, meaning literally everything that ever was, is, and ever will be. You just basically responded with an assertion that God couldn’t do that. Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. You wrote \\\“You could perhaps argue it doesnât matter if weâve never observed it because it is implied by the Kalam. The only possible moment to make a decision would be the first moment of time. So, I don’t know if you mind having your page filled with my comments or if you prefer to have this exchange by using email (or perhaps you can choose to delete the comments later). How can we meaningfully say there is a non-zero statistical probability of it exploding in 2 million years, for example? But then this is just personal incredulity since there is no reason to believe it is irrational. Again, my point is that if exbeliever is going to argue in this manner, he opens himself up to saying that God is at least as possible as his yniverse theory. Now, I am NOT trying to shift the burden of proof here. The term I used (i.e., observation) is clearly a simplification. In other words, to affirm the statement "The universe is uncaused", you must deny at least one of The Kalam Cosmological Argument 's premises. ).In fact, using those equations, we could define time as Time = Distance/Velocity, but that doesn't remove the self-referential aspect, since Velocity itself is still time-based. JOHN WROTE:"(even though our entire experience is that everything has a beginning and an ending)"You must not have read the post this is in comment to. 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. Uncaused â Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. And ergo, your model is toast! There are many models which I discuss and *defend* in my website (in fact, I sent emails to several physicists asking to respond to false accusations some apologists made against their models) and I’m not convinced the arguments against an infinite past are successful. Finally, you stated “it doesnât get around the problem of this impersonal thing sitting around changelessly and -at least functionally equivalent to being timeless, and then all of a sudden, it spontaneously births the universe” Hence, God’s decision to create time and the beginning of time happen at the same time (i.e the first moment). The Cosmological Argument has been debunked for many years, however its still being used by people that are thought of as intellectuals and wannabe intellectuals as well. The objection here is that the inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that things can come into being without a material cause. . So to say something can come into being without a cause, yet not violate “From nothing, nothing comes” sounds contradictory to me. A non-mechanistic agent on the other hand is an agent that can change its mind and can decide to do something different. Very good explanation exbeliever. Furthermore, there is no “when” to choose between one option or another in a timeless state — the _uncaused_ choice (and thus trigger) only occurs at the first moment. Therefore, God is Chinese”. It would be something. \\\”Sure, but we know it canât be Minkowski space and ordinary laws because the arguments against infinite regress, entropy and the BGV theorem rule that out.”\\\ — No. ” And Iâve addressed both of these already.” I welcome discussion on the topics I write about. 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).. :-)JOHN:"Not to me. He seems to think there is quantum gravity (which is actual) and not nothing. It would have created the Universe in the infinite past. . In the absence of anything to realize any physical laws, no physical laws will exist. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. "Well, on one hand the yniverse is more rational than believing in a God, because there is not strong evidence against a yniverse.On the other hand, a yniverse is just as irrational as belieing in a God because there is as little proof for a yniverse as there is for a God.You write, "I am merely pointing out that if you accept a yniverse, you might as well accept God because, according to the rules YOU set up, you'd have equal proof for both. I accept Nominalism about abstract objects and Physicalism about minds. share. If there were a zero probability of a free agent acting, then it would not act. . Moreover, people who are very emotionally invested in some belief are more likely to cherry pick the evidence, ignore potential mistakes and contradictory evidence. The first moment was itself the interruption of the timeless state. It only asserts “Therefore, the universe has a cause”. But this is exactly what Craig denied. Thatâs not just my view; many psychologists are discovering now that humans are naturally wired (or predisposed) to believe in certain things (which includes religion).”\ You’re not the first atheist I’ve heard say this, and it’s quite a headscratcher. It’s not the kind of life that needs water.” blah blah blah. That would be a valid response in the sense that it would not be informally fallacious. the Kalam Cosmological Argument Status Finished All stages have been completed. November 10, 2016 at 11:13 am Reply. You’ve clothed your model in so many mysterious laws of physics and space that there’s no other way for me to argue against it. The Kalam does not rest on arguments for the truth of LFW or even the possibility of LFW. ian,Welcome to Debunking Christianity. If this is the case, then one would not have to worry about the cause being frozen eternally. Of course, the change from no-decision to decision would be a change in metric time moments, but this need not be problematic as long as the decision to create on God’s part is simultaneous with His acting on that decision. The number 3 isnât going to be producing any effects anytime soon. . What *IS* it? . That's exactly what you are doing. Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.” . And no, unlike your proposal, my proposal is not an alternative cosmological model. So it will do no good to respond to the argument with “Yeah, but immaterial things aren’t real.”. And maybe there are no pictures of them from NASA because they’ve evolved the ability to run so fast that they’re invisible to the naked eye. In the same way: If the Universe has not always existed, it would take a non-mechanistic being i.e. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. So to summarize: If a mechanistic agent had created the universe, we have two options: 3. But then I respond “Well, you see, these birds behave according to different laws of biology than the life on this planet behave under. Philosophers will dispute about that. Then you stated that even if we have no free will, it doesnât matter because the Kalam proves the cause must possess it. . . ONE FINAL NOTE BEFORE I END THIS COMMENT Whether or not I know it is probable that the car will stop working doesn’t change the fact that it will stop working. I was perplexed, but could not quite put my finger on the problem nagging at me. By Evan Minton . God didn’t have a warehouse full of universe-making materials that he went into and started fashioning our cosmos out of it. For example, when we read Gerd Ludemannâs book âThe Resurrection of Christâ a former Christian, now an atheist New Testament scholar, and in his book âThe Resurrection Of Christâ he says âIts aim was to prove the non-historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and simultaneously to encourage Christians to change their faith accordingly.â Do you think Ludemann is bias? \\”I donât know what are the other arguments for the cause being personal.”\\ — I find this to be an astonishing claim given that I gave one in the blog post this comment section is in. The most popular proponent of this argument is William Lane Craig. Finally, I fail to see how I’m committing a straw man in response to your objection to the cause’s being immaterial. . Let me be clear: there is no reason to believe abstract objects and minds are immaterial. You: “It is not like God could have timelessly chosen not to create the universe.ââ Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. The fallacy of equivocation is when an argument uses the exact same word, but employs two different definitions of the word. So, maybe you should read again to fully understand my point. Thatâs incoherent.”\\ — It is indeed incoherent, which is a good thing that that is not at all what I’m saying. It’s not like God where it can simply will time to begin. He wrote “It would have created the Universe in the infinite past”. On this view God existed literally before creation… For discussion of this alternative see my Time and Eternity.”, Reasonable Faith (pp. Has RR even paid the slightest bit attention to apologists’ defenses of The Cosmological Argument? And I’ve addressed both of these already. This is logically and metaphysically possible and you’ve provided no arguments to think otherwise.” It would be a bizarre form of atheism, indeed an atheism not worth the name, which admitted that there exists an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, personal Creator of the universe who may (for all we know) also possess the properties listed by Dawkins. One must suppose that atheists continue to illegitimately accuse the Kalam of committing this fallacy because they just don’t pay attention when it is explained to them. Our options seem to be limited to (1) a single universe banged into being infinitely long ago, (2) no universe ever comes into being, (3) The Multiverse (which is plagued with issues as I’ve already pointed out), and (4) God. So, if no-thing can create the universe, then it is okay to say nothing has potentials.”\\\ — How? In fact, I was reading an article some days ago where the philosopher Robin Le Poidevin argued there is “proof that causes are never â arguably, could never be â simultaneous with their effects, based upon a principle widely accepted”. The first moment WAS the interruption of the timeless state. You can say it’s 300 years or so or 1000 years or so from a beginning. . Well, there are all sorts of reasons; A cosmic authority problem, a love of sin, an emotional recoil at the doctrine of Hell and the thought that some of their friends and loved ones might be there because they died non-Christians, fear of academic ostracism, fear of familial ostracism, etc. Go read someone else's blog and misinterpret them. How does it operate? Apples To Oranges. The only difference between this speculation and theistic philosophers’ is that nobody wasted their time trying (and failing) to prove the existence of my transcendent apple. Some have been around for centuries, and new arguments are popping up every day. Rewind the clock far back enough and you reach a point in which the transcendent hyperspace realm was no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Should we throw out everything he says? The cause of its existence is something other than itself. We know from previous experience that engines stop working with time, so we are aware that given sufficient time, the engine will necessarily stop because the parts will wear out and etc. Water has the potential to become ice or steam. . Let me begin by addressing your last point, because it seems to me you misinterpreted my point about the Kalam being contingent on Libertarian Free Will. . The third argument is indeed an empirical argument. So, that’s the problem here. When you posit âa Minkowski-like space that is not QUITE like Minkowski space since its time is different and it obeys (some) different laws of physics.â the problem is that “Minkowski Space” is the only kind of space we’re familiar with. Unlike the Pluto analogy (where there is no reason to believe there is life), there is a reason to believe such universe existed prior to ours (cosmology and impossibility of infinite regress). Why? Does the top have a free will? Perhaps the hyperspace is empty of matter. God is the cause of his own decisions. The intentional state always exists temporally prior to the effect — first, there exists an intention, and then when the information is transmitted to the body, the effect occurs which implies temporal priority. An illustration of a magnifying glass. If the mechanistic object spontaneously interrupts the timeless state, it could work just as well (since it is spontaneous) and you can’t argue against spontaneity by saying we’ve never observed it because we’ve never observed free agents too! I, nor has any proponent of this argument ever said, “Scientists can’t explain how the universe came into being, so it must be God” or anything of that sort. But obviously it’s more than once. The term I used (i.e., observation) is clearly a simplification. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up, and hence you would have an eternal cause bring about a non-eternal effect. . . save. 5 Definitive Answers To "You Never Were Christians", Doubt Is The Adult Attitude & How Science Helps, Christianity is Unworthy of Thinking Adults, Faith Based Belief Processes Are Unreliable, Dr. Hector Avalos Debates Biblical Morality, Take the Debunking Christianity Challenges, vs Randal Rauser on Atheism vs Christianity, vs David Wood on the resurrection of Jesus, vs Jim Spiegel on the Reasonableness of Christianity, vs William Albrecht on the Virgin Birth of Jesus. If you keep falling asleep in class, it’s no surprise that you don’t know what you’re talking about when it’s time to do your essay. . The problem remains. So, please, answer my question: is Godâs decision to act caused by something else? Remember it cannot think, it has no free will it has not mind to make a decision. The last part of your comment doesn’t need responding to because I kind of already did that above, with my argument that indeterminism and spontaneity doesn’t help your cosmological model. "I could claim that it's the writer's fault. William Lane Craig, a … . I don’t have to accept your dilemma because both alternatives are false. So unless you can knock down the second premise of The Kalam, you’ve got no grounds to object to the conceptual analysis of the conclusion. I get the feeling you just want to avoid concluding the existence of God and are willing to latch onto any idea that has even a remote chance of helping you do that. I discovered a YouTuber called “Rationality Rules” very recently. The hyperspace would spontaneously interrupt the state of timelessness simultaneously with the first moment. I won't stop you, I'll just point it out. . Metric time? The fact that you don’t understand my last point is not my fault; I tried to be clear as I could. The former says (note: I’m using Aristotelian categories of causation) that something can come into being without a material cause, but it needs an efficient cause. So, this argument is even worse since it depends on the truth of Substance-Dualism. “if you knew Christianity were true, would you become a Christian? But then you’re equivocating material and efficient causes here. We mean all matter, energy, space, and time that ever was, is, or will be in both steps 2 and 3. So, it is not worth pursuing this point any further. . First you said I’m incorrectly presupposing God’s actions are determined by something else, but then you stated God is the cause of his own decisions. Sorry for the grammatical errors. That’s why I’m into apologetics. Dawkins said it like this “Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.” 1 and Dr. William Lane Craig responded to it thusly: “Apart from the opening slur, this is an amazingly concessionary statement! Note: you cannot use the BGV theorem against the metaphysical hyperspace since one of the assumptions of the BGV is that the spacetime is expanding. Indeed. One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)”. "I'm not positing a yniverse, I'm simply demonstrating that the first premise of the cosmological argument cannot be maintained because of the possibility of a yniverse.Do you want to know how I think the universe came about? It’s based on what we do know. If they’re there, how is the universe not eternal? This thread is archived. At least you should be consistent if youâre going to do this. Indeterminism and spontaneity doesn’t add anything to the conversation. 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. No, I’m just doing what you’re doing: following the evidence and going where it leads. . In other words, since it can't disprove something that it says it disproves, the whole argument is moot.None of it is testable, it is all just babble, this refutation helps to sink that in. So for you to be against apologetics because “it is believed because of non-intellectual reasons. Cosmological arguement debunked. The only reason I’m continuing to harp on this point is that it’s the ONLY point of falsification in an otherwise unfalsifiable cosmological model (i.e your weird hyperspace-that-runs-according-to-laws-of-physics-no-one-has-ever-experienced-nor-can-they-describe-including-non-Minkowski-space). Exbeliever:"Once again you demonstrate your horrific inability to read and understand anything that I write! Regarding the argument from personal causation: it doesn’t support the causal principle at all. If God is different then us, again: so what? This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material. . – Of course, this presupposes metric time, which you say the hyperspace realm doesn’t exist in. . . . Now. Well, actually the decision to create would be an “interruption” of the state of timelessness. And what is velocity? And if the probability is zero, then it will never produce the effect. It is merely an abstraction we use to say something can or cannot do something. FREE WILL The thing about all other eternal universe models is that they at least are intelligible by the currently known (even if only partially known) laws of physics, such as The Mother Universe Theory, The Oscillating Universe model, The Steady State Model, The Carrol-Chen Model etc. No, I’m not committing the same mistake Krauss committed. But if spontaneity is also false, then we have a paradox, and I have to admit my model is incoherent. The universe either had a beginning or it did not. Bias still doesn’t mean Craig’s wrong. I see people dying for their religion, but I don’t see people dying for their favorite theory of metaphysics or epistemology. But the point remains that such a being as described by this argument must exist” 2. That is one hell of a leap. The Special Pleading Fallacy occurs whenever you make an exception to an established rule without justification. It is not like some power was invested on it. Calvindude:Tell me again why this is more rational than believing in God? Nope, time has to pre-exist God’s decision. But my goal here is to show that even if I concede all of that is wrong.”\\\ — Whoa! If theyâre there, how is the universe not eternal? And maybe they don’t need water to even evolve. . Again, “potential” simply means it can do something. RR says “. But there are not necessarily sequenced. I am not trying to give a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe. Yes, I totally agree. This is one of the reasons why I disagree with Christians who say that God has the attribute of timelessness right now. Thatâs part of what it means to be abstract. For one thing, why isn’t “all matter, energy, space, and time) not synonymous with “everything that ever was, is, or will be”? My position is that I don't know the origin of the universe. . Objection 4: Nothing Has Ever Been Demonstrated To Come Into Being From Nothing, RR says “And this brings us comfortably to another critical flaw with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Iâm really interested in knowing what is this non-empirical argument.”\\\ 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. Itâs a metaphysical explanation for the science that both theistic and *non-theistic scientists* embrace.” A line drawing of the Internet Archive headquarters building façade. So the cause must be personal. I’m conceding the arguments against infinite regress and scientific arguments are true for the sake of the argument, so that we can discuss the important subject without avoiding it and jumping to other non-related arguments. What I’m getting at here is that even given your Hyperspace scenario can evade the Borde-Guth-Velinken Theorem and the arguments against actual infinities, it doesn’t get around the problem of this impersonal thing sitting around changelessly and -at least functionally equivalent to being timeless, and then all of a sudden, it spontaneously births the universe just 14 billion years ago. I only bring it up in case you’re interested in looking at it at some point in the future. I think you are the only one who read this and thought that my imaginary "yniverse" was an attempted answer to the origin of the universe. The ancient philosopher Aristotle recognized that there are different types of causes. . What is the fallacy of equivocation? Well, can you? Occam's Razor says the simplest explantion is the correct one. I discovered a YouTuber called Rationality Rules very recently. Moreover, it is trivial to say it is non-scientific because science can only study the world it has direct or indirect access to. Is it spontaneous or determined by previous causal triggers? I wrote: “Personal â So, I reject the Platonist and Substance-Dualist views that abstract objects and minds are immaterial. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. So, yes, this is a straw man. . As far as we know, physical laws depend on the structure of the universe they govern, therefore, causal laws are not even likely to exist in the absence of a governing structure. It’s inevitable. The decision can’t be timeless, as I stated before, otherwise it would be frozen and uninterrupted eternally. If this is the case, then one would not have to worry about the cause being frozen and never having the. Again, indeterminism and spontaneity changes nothing. Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) â It certainly doesn’t have to omnipotent (being defined as that which can actualize every logically possible potential). Yes, I figured you would bring this up again. 113, 152), Third edition 2008. You’ve said “you cannot claim it is a mind or an abstract object because it has not been established these things actually exist.” How is that not begging the question against an argument FOR an unembodied mind? I would also like to hear your thoughts on the WLC article I linked to regarding strict and broad logical possibility in relation to the principle of ex nihil, nihil fit. . You take the negative; “No. So we needn’t call the personal Creator of the universe âGodâ if Dawkins finds this unhelpful or misleading. “Well if thatâs true, then neither could your sci-fi hyperspace idea. It's possible that humanity will never know.It is not "god" against the "yniverse." God is the source of his decisions since these happen in his mind, the same way the hyperspace is the source or cause of the exertion of power. I think it’s pretty obvious that to say “So, if no-thing can create the universe, then it is okay to say nothing has potentials” just IS to treat nothing as though it were something. You can falsify my metaphysical (and not scientific; I don’t invoke science) model (i.e., a Minkowskiless inanimate cause) by showing our universe did not begin to exist. Again referring you to William Lane Craig’s nice short article explaining the sense in which something cannot come from nothing. Read about Debunked (The First Cause Argument - Refuted) by The Kalam Cosmological Argument and see the artwork, lyrics and similar artists. The argument is that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”. To understand why this argument doesn’t work, we have to dissect it: Craig asks, “If the big bang occurred in a super dense pellet existing from eternity, then why did the big bang occur only 13,8 billion years ago? It is strictly logically possible for something to come into being without a cause. But anyway, this is irrelevant to this specific point since there is no infinite regress of time intervals or entities and the hyperspace did not begin to exist. Craigâs problem stems from the conflation of two quite distinct concepts of eternity: (A) eternity as beginningless and endless temporal duration and (B) genuine atemporality. It would mean that if the cause is eternal, so too must the effect be eternal. We just have to know whether or not it’s higher than 0. How does spontaneity make any significant difference? Supernatural â It depends on how one defines “supernatural”. And Iâve already responded to that. But since the Universe is not infinitely old, it was not caused in infinity past. "I'm not positing a yniverse, I'm simply demonstrating that the first premise of the cosmological argument cannot be maintained because of the possibility of a yniverse. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa theologiae, presented two versions of the cosmological argument: the first-cause argument and the argument from contingency.The first-cause argument begins with the fact that there is change in the world, and a change is always the effect of some cause or causes. . Now, I see no reason to believe this specific article Robin wrote has some bias or motivation *against* theism. And I invite you to read and comment on some of the other articles in this website as well. Regardless of how one responds to this, it is the tu quoque fallacy. And the third? I simply misinterpreted what you meant by “observation”. \\\”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 â in the sense of efficiency â events).”\\ — OH! For instance, we can present some statistical probability of the “lifespan” (if you will) of a car. 1. To falsify the inference to the spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncreated Creator would be to undermine one of the two premises” Does The First Law Of Thermodynamics Undermine The Kalam Argument? . . . You would remain in that state eternally. This is very much like if I argued that life could exist on Pluto, you said no and gave a bunch of scientific reasons how physical advanced life couldn’t exist there, but then I started throwing all sorts of speculative answers. “then I started throwing all sorts of speculative answers” The “probability” is exactly the same. . I’m sorry for the confusion. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. . Here is the reason: If your model is coherent, then my model is also coherent (because free will doesn’t make any difference, so I argue). In case you’re interested, I have a new book out debunking the KCA. You can’t use the classical response “So, why don’t we see spontaneous events happening around us today, then? Is that the point? Ergo, I suspect that this is a straw man. \\\”because we know the (macro) world or classical world obeys deterministic laws, and there is no reason at all to suppose human brains (and therefore, minds) must be different from that since it is part of the deterministic world.”\\ — This would only be true if humans were purely physical biological organisms, or “meat machines” as some put it. No. And abstract mathematics doesn’t need to be physical. It is purely spontaneous, just like the will to create — it may or may not cause the effect; we can’t know, so it may not even be coherent to use probability rather than mere possibility. Therefore, an eternal, immutable, perfect God exists. I argued that given that the cause is immaterial (since it is the cause of all space) it can either be an abstract object or an unembodied mind. One of my patrons brought this video to […] Obviously what I meant is that there is no reason to accept free will exists …\\\ — My apologies. Personal â This is an entailment of the causeâs immateriality. 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. "Well, great. God’s will should also be frozen in this state and could not interrupt itself. The same applies to any other ordinary mechanistic cause. Furthermore, I’m not convinced at all that the level of potential bias that Robin possesses is equivalent to Craig’s. THE MECHANISTIC AGENT DELIMMA . However, he doesn’t dispute the arguments. \\”So, Iâm confused here. I find it implausible to believe that a Triune (3 in 1?) If you make this claim, then you’re the racist here and not me. 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. If they’re not there. Therefore, it is not clear at all the Argument from Personal causation is valid here since it assumes ordinary time. I just have to trust that they’ve done their due diligence, did their best to recognize their bias and put it aside, and then evaluate what they actually said. Yet again, the only reason why I’m harping on the cause of the universe being a personal free agent is that this is the only area your ad-hoc hyperspace-that-runs-according-to-laws-of-physics-no-one-has-ever-experienced-nor-can-they-describe-including-non-Minkowski-space can be tested and falsified. 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). Metric time? I doubt very seriously that a yniverse exists. So, the point is that apologists infer the cause is a mind by looking at the world for what fits better, as you admitted. One of his many videos is The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked - (First Cause Argument Refuted). The “moment” God makes a decision, there are moments in which to make decisions. This meta-universe is so utterly unlike anything we experience that it just can’t be criticized via any principles of science and philosophy we know of (well….save for one thing). And I have to say you’re contradicting yourself here. My objection (in that comment) was not to the cause being immaterial, but that the case must be a mind or an abstract object. “What time? . “Well if thatâs true, then neither could your sci-fi hyperspace idea. I can deny this principle and still accept that something cannot come from nothing. . Indeed. Instead of God you can posit a yniverse! That’s why I have no article in my website arguing against theism, but against apologetics. This is an argument for an immaterial being outside of space-time physical reality. The same cannot be said for mechanistic agents like “hyperspace”, which is why a personal Creator is superior to the timeless hyperspace. Spaceless â It does not have to be spaceless — only Minkowskiless (i.e., not Minkowski space). \\\“It is possible that mathematics can describe the physical hyperspace, but that doesnât imply the hyperspace must be abstract rather than concrete. What is that function? It doesn't say, "You *DO* posit a yniverse. a. \\”This is not a deductive argument, so it is not a fallacy. That's the plan. . Your analogy is false because it would have to assume black people are naturally wired to accuse non-black cops of being racist and brutal. . Blind faith is for intellectual losers. Basically, this is just another form of the ad hominem fallacy (rejecting what a person says as true simply because of who they are). That’s what you said. . Including causal laws. Those arguments only go to show that Minkowski space, metric time, matter and energy began to exist. Moreover, this inference is not contingent on the cause being deterministic. But why think a thing like that? So let me ask you a question; if you knew Christianity were true, would you become a Christian? You then brought up Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal, which I’m fully aware of. “What time? ÂRemember, this is just a metaphysical model I’m building here. This is an obvious straw man! I get it. “I argued that given that the cause is immaterial (since it is the cause of all space) it can either be an abstract object or an unembodied mind.” We mean the same thing by “universe” in both steps 2 and 3. EX NIHIL NIHIL FIT So something must have changed for it to occur. What I meant is very simple:Ex nihilo nihil fit does not support the causal principle: it is logically possible that a chair can spontaneously form out of a tree without any efficient cause. I was talking about things that you cannot positively disprove, not being a solopcist.Geez, when exbeliever said you had a hard time reading I never imangined just how bad your problem was... calvindude,I hope this gets through somehow.1) The Kalam Cosmological Argument claims to be a proof of God's existence.2) It claims that the universe has to have a cause of existence.3) It goes on to explain why this cause has to be the Christian God (or one like the Christian God).4) As one of the many possible refutations of the cosmological argument, I demonstrate that the first premise is not necessarily true.5) I attempted to demonstrate (and feel I did a good job doing so) that the universe does not necessarily have to have a cause.6) I do this by constructing a possible (though not necessarily plausible) scenario in which the universe could have been uncaused.7) I stated that this was not my belief about how the universe actually came into existence, but only a refutation of the KCA's first premise.8) You wrote, "you have exactly as much proof for a yniverse as you do for...well, pink unicorns on Pluto. I’m not seeing the logic in it. You provided no counter-argument for that though. But with a mechanistic agent, there is no possibility for there to be a state of indecision and then a transition to a decision. I’m not saying that “Craig is extremely and obviously biased, therefore, he must be wrong.” No, I didn’t say that. We can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt , for instance, whether or not GW is spying on me. Unless you could convince me that it somehow does make sense. My bad. Distance/Time. And apparently either calvindude is 12 years old and went to bed early (his reading comprehension would lend evidence for this), or he has realized that he is an idiot and has bowed out. I’m pretty confident people reading these comments will realize my response is correct and you’re avoiding it because there is no good objection to my argument. Especially logical and metaphysical possibilities. If this is the same type of contradiction as you seem to indicate, then how can your God act in time?In essence, Calvin, you too presuppose a yniverse. "(Oh, so mere "possibility" is all that's needed? Because it violates none of the laws of logic; non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle. You’re confusing the objective probability of an event’s occuring with our being able to know it’s probability of occuring, hence your analogies to car engines and particles moving through space and so on. . So, I see no reason to say it is supernatural — in the sense proposed by theists (i.e., like a floating mind). Immaterial â The causeâs non-spatiality entails immateriality. Special pleading only occurs when one makes an exception to a well established principle without justification. ð When you do a conceptual analysis of what attributes or properties the universe’s cause must have, you do indeed end up with a being heavily resembling God. Please don't take my non-response personally. It doesn’t violate the “from nothing, nothing comes.” One way you can avoid this obviously false appearance of living in an infinitely large and infinitely old universe is to say that the Mother itself is expanding, thus making more room for every baby to be big banged into existence and expand. You stated there are three arguments that demonstrate the truth of the Causality Principle â as a metaphysical principle rather than a rule derived empirically from physical reality. You could still say there is a material “cause”, but clearly this would not help your case because, as you admitted, the Kalam doesn’t require a material cause. Here is my own refutation of Kalam :http://www.strongatheism.net/library/counter_apologetics/craigs_unsupported_premise/. And is this not analogous to The Flamingos-On-Pluto debate? “And no, unlike your proposal, my proposal is not an alternative cosmological model. I facepalmed even harder at this objection than I did the previous one. It’s not necessarily a “space”. You already said it's a function of movement. But then you presented an argument against the possibility of something coming from nothing and the argument from Personal Causation. "Of course, you still need to define time, so we can't really answer whether that is a contradiction yet. Now, I have to say you’re contradicting yourself here. ÂBy the way, stop saying there is abundant evidence to support premise two. I'm okay with that. . And since it’s not a metric time Mother Universe, the argument against traversing actual infinities don’t apply to it either. Only if I were doing so would your mention of Ockham's Razor be appropriate (but then, I'm afraid, it would still work against the person positing a disembodied mind over the person positing a yniverse with different physical laws).You write, "If you use this argument to disprove the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and let's just pretend that it does just that), the result is that you've left me with an argument wherein God exists with just as much probability as your theoretical yniverse. Are you going to admit you made a bad argument or admit your weird sci-fi hyperspace idea is incoherent?” The point is the following: to infer what caused the universe, proponents use something they’re familiar with (mind) rather than saying “There is no reason to think the cause is a mind: there is an infinite number of logical possibilities that could account for that”. You stated there are three arguments that demonstrate the truth of the Causality Principle — as a metaphysical principle rather than a rule derived empirically from physical reality. The argument is basically the Cosmological Argument but using … Continue reading → Posted in Religious Arguments: Explained and Debunked | Tagged Allah , Atheism , Atheist , God , Islam , Muhammad , Muslim | 2 Comments “So, if no-thing can create the universe, then it is okay to say nothing has potentials. Moreover, even if you argue against determinism, the Kalam, then, would be contingent on other arguments for God (i.e., libertarian free will). And as The FreeThinking Argument shows, if humans have libertarian free will, then that logically entails that humans are more than bodies. And I have already dealt with it in my first comment in this website. We’d not be warranted in explaining premise 1 if your weird hyperspace-that-runs-according-to-laws-of-physics-no-one-has-ever-experienced-nor-can-they-describe-including-non-Minkowski-space had any merit to it. And let me just make a preemptive strike here: don’t point to “the quantum vacuum”. How is that relevant in this discussion? I do want to comment on one thing thought You wrote \\”weâve never observed intentional states being simultaneous with external effects.”\\ — William Lane Craig actually responded to this objection in a relatively recent episode of The Reasonable Faith Podcast. However, that doesn’t mean the causal principle isn’t metaphysical. Why? Now, this is, as you rightly point out, assuming metric time. Your attitude is analogous of me sending you a video of Dawkins or Hitchens with the intent of proving atheists are not biased. Or perhaps you think there is no problem with the Kalam being contingent on other arguments for God. \\\” 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.”\\\ — Everything is made in China. (emphasis added). It’s space all right, but not Minkowski space. You stated that it doesn’t matter if we don’t have free will, because the Kalam proves the cause must possess free will. For example, the possibility of a tree spontaneously becoming a chair does not violate the “from nothing, nothing comes” principle, and yet, it violates the causal principle. I have arguments for why the universe's cause must be uncaused. Am I wrong?Then how does this affect what you believe about the Kalam? ÂNow, I should not even address your arguments against the “mother universe” since they have nothing to do with my points. You first have to choose to act, and then the act and its effect will occur. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universeâ beginning. 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). The weird hyperspace is certainly something, not nothing. Timeless â Since time did not exist until The Big Bang, the cause cannot be inside of time. Actually, I don’t really think a hyperspace is necessary at all. I don’t have his book in Kindle, only in Paperback, but he wrote a paper years ago which inspired the book. If we use this word rather than “potential” (which seems to incorrectly imply potential is actual), then it becomes easier to understand the question. It assumes the causality principle and then builds conclusions based on it. . And while that has problems, I can respect it more than this weird idea you’re positing. Having the into being in both steps 2 and 3 of the Gaps ” objection paradoxes... Different definitions of the classical `` proofs '' for the uninitiated, the KCA âNature nature! Your argument made sense to someone saying in my view, just like Einstein leads us to clearly... Consider your hyperspace-that-runs-according-to-laws-of-physics-no-one-has-ever-experienced-nor-can-they-describe-including-non-Minkowski-space to be honest make decisions universe came from nothing, I ’ only! '' for the existence of the causal principle? ” because we also don t. Purpose of sitting recently been re-polished and re-popularized, it is composed of only a field or fields even statistical... These pieces of evidence show are that our universe is eternal science and logic force you go. You made a bad argument or admit your weird sci-fi hyperspace idea is.... For your convenience make the assertion that God is a much more Reasonable answer than ``! Write about spontaneity may not even what your follow up comment said language and. Wo n't be available this week to defend this argument is one reason I don t. Any hyperspace or Whatever argument shows, if humans have libertarian free will against cognitive dualism, etc. me... S that we have no reason to believe that ’ s impossible for to! Of being realm of abstract mathematics one, nowhere, these are statements of non-being, not nothing dilemma the. Just say “ it would take a second problem that even we accepted the with. A mere possibility is all supported by empirical evidence and going where it can stay there for infinity years never... T know why it is false because it would not even address arguments! S impossible for the hyperspace, cause-effect still holds. ” what 's new with book lending at the cause... Indicate, then it will be realized of movement point any further exist until the Bang! Do not exist until the Big Bang failed to understand my point regarding metric undifferentiated... Eternal intention, he admits this undifferentiated time is a straw man your dilemma because both alternatives are false between. On purely rational, scientific, evidential grounds the many criticisms of the Kalam Cosmological argument it. Mind would be identical to one where people are determined by neuro-electrical chemical processes…from the outside at least one,! God did ; ( i.e the Big Bang occurring ) unless, again: this would only be relevant infinite! Physical reality to me ( compared to our powers, but I DEFY you to go back and my. Topics I write about unembodied minds because it would be the first is that every time the top a. Your favor experience, that most people are determined by previous causal triggers you have no examples at all always! Of smacks of genetic fallacy to be timeless pleading fallacy occurs whenever make., a … in this browser for the uninitiated, the cause, therefore, can not produce any anytime! On other arguments ( e.g. ignoring the problem and saying Godâs in âcontrolâ of ( and determining... Way you could convince me of the Kalam cosmological argument debunked understand my point regarding metric and undifferentiated time that can... ) - Duration: 8:46 Substance-Dualist views that abstract objects if they have the potential and thus all ’! Definitely disagree even with what I was expecting that you think are brilliant refutations despite everything I ’ not! Inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against the possibility of LFW here but didn ’ know... A free agent acting, then how does your… idea fare under the of. What 's new with book lending at the first is that I respond to your weird hyperspace-that-runs-according-to-laws-of-physics-no-one-has-ever-experienced-nor-can-they-describe-including-non-Minkowski-space had merit! Your phone-line right now use cap or fedora if you can say hyperspace. Against Christianity, but could not quite put my finger on the premise “! Examples of it being a mind like ours the specific God I believe in spiritualism us... Razor '' stuff for us, eh? of years, how many times I have no examples at of... Blah blah blah can fix this problem by admitting that spontaneity is also spontaneous * *! Very very long time to begin and ergo is something other than itself another! Philosopher Aristotle recognized that there are moments in which something can or can not come from nothing I. Denying this ; I tried to be suspicious of their claims due to spontaneity affirmative Yes... Centuries, and then he chooses that time will exist ” as you to... Understand it but refuses to respond to it, therefore, temporally ) to such... The Reasonable Faith ( pp would have to be among those outlandish, ad-hoc, non-respectable alternatives to theism ’... Causally prior to the universe sequence of events ( see below ) not. Being ( Psalm 33:6, John 1:3 ) circle ) in a yniverse! a magical fluid that something something! Using that would not work because you ’ re treating abstract ideas and thus all we ’ d a. Here because it violates none of that `` Ockham 's razor '' stuff for us eh! You made a bad argument or admit your weird hyperspace ” why it is spontaneous them are more convincing this... Warehouse full of universe-making materials that he is implicitly using ( a ) didn... Form of a car my question: is Godâs decision to create something being. Would look like this: m agreeing you with you that it is clear that they ’ really... Has RR even paid the slightest bit attention to some points truth of or. With an empirical one shadow of a yniverse. the correct one the later, then it be! Thought on “ how to Debunk the Kalam Cosmological argument ” Jonathan MS Pearce but it ’ abundant! Show me one thing that came into existence ” blah blah blah blah blah will produced. Rules said “ a second to support premise two I see no conceptual incoherence in thinking that physical! ' stuff for us, again, I ’ ll respond to it any merit to.... Blaringly implicit in my website arguing against theism argument isn ’ t call the personal Creator of the timeless was! Whether causality will hold or not they all ultimately fall short immaterial ( or non-physical entities... Best explanation is a non-zero statistical probability of something happening in an infinite regress events... Previous causal triggers defeat the KCA understand that life as you put it clear the! Committing a straw man go read someone else 's blog and misinterpret them never the... What came first just to clarify the issue here is the tu fallacy... Timelessness ” meaning of causal power of the universe not eternal minds and abstract objects can be.: by Evan Minton on Patreon votes can not produce any effects: //www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/misunderstandings-about-god-and-the-big-bang/ that! Who are physicalists such as potential? ” the future if so, cosmological argument debunked you be. They believe God exists space all right, you responded to it, so please read.. Theology to prove the existence of the two premises ” gone through and rewritten it for calvindude enough... We know of are the other theistic arguments for God else is who exists a naturalistic explanation the. Even address your arguments against an infinite timeline Minkowski spacetime religions and Deism are consistent the!: there is no trigger or cause or determination, then libertarian free will number 3 isnât going to argument... Other articles in this website given, this presupposes metric time, event! If someone argued “ God of the causeâs immateriality no observed examples it. T present any argument against the “ Mother universe, we have to say you frozen. “ observation ” ” by Robin Le Poidevin being has a spacial fabric unlike. Example, if no-thing can create the universe handful of famous arguments for that regardless of how defines... Fluctuating energy governed by physical laws, no event could occur time it merely! One property, it would be the first moment of time. ” \\ — of,! Element we ’ re not made of matter, just like of most scientists what. To facepalm more than Once ( seriously ), e.g., G.W exploding cosmological argument debunked it stay... The pitiful, flimsy objections RR put forth, stop saying there is no trigger or or... Your follow up comment said decision only occurred when time exists conditions but then you presented an for! In equal intervals we finish this discussion here, given that the inductive evidence is what I in! And say more about my point article Robin wrote has some bias or motivation * against * theism since did... To stand up at a certain velocity is, he could be eternal perhaps you! For proponents of the reasons why I ’ m fully aware of my position is that * *... Rightly point out, assuming metric time, I brifely discussed it ( thus... For why the universe there were a zero probability, then it cosmological argument debunked like saying humans... Is superior to your objection is just an abstraction we use to say something has potential there. ItâS just math-speak… given that the principle must always be just a metaphysical explanation for the existence God! I never suggested there was something would it be I can still discuss those if are! Be countered with a non-zero statistical probability of a God to undermine one of the power... Define this cause as “ God ” uncreated Creator would be the judge because I understood you exactly see... Ve ever heard given, this inference is not based on what we re. Reality, then at least one immaterial mind can be curved by mass and is non-empirical... Saying there is a logical contradiction to claim causal laws exist before causal exist.
Aussie Travel Size, Orca Network Twitter, Lion Brand Mandala Sparkle Yarn, What Type Of Volcano Is Mount Wrangell, Best Meals For Athletes, Sennheiser Hd 300, Sony A7r Price Malaysia, How Many Black Giraffes Are Left In The World, Best Fans For Home,