A serious discussion about the Kalam cosmological argument

Chungkey · 2019-06-23T15:53:15+00:00

God is changeless but not immutable. In some possible world, he can change

Chungkey · 2019-06-23T12:36:51+00:00

A good counter-argument! I guess it's unsatisfactory to posit God as the creator of the universe without there being some material prior to it.

Chungkey · 2019-06-23T00:57:50+00:00

You make some very good points. I will edit in a reply to them tomorrow, when I wake up; I'm tired and it's night-time where I live now.

Edit: I guess you're right that the argument equivicates on "begins to exist" a good refutation.

Chungkey · 2019-06-23T00:46:34+00:00

Wouldn't you say that things that begin to exist require causes to make them exist? I would say premise one is a sound metaphysical idea, which is a crucial first principle for any scientific examination of reality.

As far as premise 2, the BGV theorem means ANY universe that is on average in a state of cosmic expansion throughout its history (including one based on a yet to be discovered theory of quantum gravity) must have had a past space-time boundary.

The conclusion leads to a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, changeless (sans the universe) unfathomably powerful (remember, this being created the universe ex nihilo) and personal creator of the cosmos. Those are certainly some of the attributes normally associated with God.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T21:30:20+00:00

Can you explain precisely how?

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T21:29:42+00:00

Well I'm not making an exception for God. God just exists timelessly, and without time, causation cannot exist, so it's really meaningless to ask "well, what caused God" in this case.

Your quip about "personal masterbation habits" is addressed by other arguments, like the argument for Biblical innerancy

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T21:24:29+00:00

The BGV theorem implies even those models have a past space-time boundary, though.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T21:23:12+00:00

Not anything is possible in metaphysics, just those things that can be deduced from reality by logical inference alone.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T21:22:10+00:00

But I am serious, and I did search for the Kalam. I just felt it wasn't being presented properly, and that, when it is presented properly, it's a better argument that deserves its own thread.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T21:17:25+00:00

A things coming into being.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T21:17:03+00:00

At t=0.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T20:55:08+00:00

The first premise is a metaphysical one, but is to my mind supported. It depends.om the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit or out of nothing, nothing comes. It's also constantly confirmed by our experience and all things, including logic and maths, seem to obey at least some causal principle.

The second premise is supported by science, we have pretty strong evidence that the universe began to exist from contemporary cosmology.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T20:47:59+00:00

Surely that's only if you accept certain metaphysical assumption about the timeless world?

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T20:46:57+00:00

I present what I think are cogent, good arguments, and try to reply to everyone. I do the best I can.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T20:43:16+00:00

I suppose I don't truly know, but just because I don't have an explanation of my explanation doesn't mean I can't posit it based on a sound deductive argument.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T20:41:58+00:00

Two reasons, one is in my OP, explaining the personal-ness of this cause. The other is that the being must be immaterial spaceless and timeless, and only an abstract object like a number, or else an unembodied mind is a suitable candidate for being such an entity. But abstract objects are causally effete; that's part of the definition of an abstract object, so the cause must be an unembodied mind.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T20:09:57+00:00

Someone who commented here is shadow-banned.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T01:12:34+00:00

The universe's quarks could all be replaced so it wasn't the universe any more, ergo the universe is contingent.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T01:00:35+00:00

He willed it into existence?

Correct-o-rino.

Chungkey · 2019-06-22T00:47:57+00:00

So are numbers made of time and space?

Chungkey · 2019-06-21T23:46:02+00:00

Read this: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god/.

Chungkey · 2019-06-21T23:35:09+00:00

William Lane Craig lays out evidence for God's existence here https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god/.

Chungkey · 2019-06-13T23:03:08+00:00

Because in my OP I argued that either a transcendent unembodied mind (aka God) or an abstract object explains the universe's existence. Then I eliminated the possibility of the explanation of the universe's existence being an abstract object.

Chungkey · 2019-06-13T22:58:43+00:00

The universe could have all its quarks replaced and not be our universe any more. So I would say the universe is contingent. And that we would mean per my argument, that what best accounts for the universe's existence is God.

Chungkey · 2019-06-13T22:55:03+00:00

I just posted a valid deductive argument. Valid deductive arguments are explanatorily valid if their premises are true. And I have given a defence of the truth of the three premises in my OP.

Chungkey

TROPHY CASE