Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

Syne,

There is nothing to necessarily rule out the infinite regress of physical causes. But self-causation is not only even simpler and more probable, but necessary. This is because reality does not even begin to become real until and unless it meets the preconditions for its existence, namely, "why must I exist?" Only then can potential become actualized.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If one option is necessary then in claiming it to be so you are ruling out there being any other possibility.
So you say there is nothing to rule out an option, but then say an alternative is the necessary option.
This is thus contradictory.

If you do think that self-causation is necessary, please provide the logic that shows it to be so: your premises, the conclusion etc, and let us examine at least the validity of your thinking?

Nothing can happen unless it meets the preconditions for it to happen.
Another way of saying it is that only that which is possible (i.e. has met its preconditions) is possible.
This much is a tautology and ultimately of little value in the understanding of anything.

Further, if something can be its own precondition then surely it needs no actual precondition to occur.
And in what way is "why must I exist?" a precondition?
And what does it have to do with the KCA?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure. Where mind is reality and reality mind, there is a reflexive self-processing between the two. And as there is no separating between the two, it is impossible for anything but self-causation to occur. Think spontaneous generation.

That is a misunderstanding and far from the truth.

Since I'm sending you my letter to Ron. I might as well take the opportunity to rectify what you modestly call your "misunderstanding of Godel", involving the supposed inability of tautological systems to generate "interesting results". Read closely; if you want to get to the bottom of the controversy over "metaphysics", it doesn't get any clearer than this.

I was merely adding to Syne's argument in favor of the existence of God using a tautology. Reality contains everything necessary to be made real. Mathematics, Physics, Information/ Knowledge/ Language etc. Max Tegmark for instance has a theory that mathematics is the only reality which makes perfect sense. Reality must know itself both globally and locally in order to carry out the operations necessary to maintain its existence. Otherwise it would be unable to remotely cause self-perception to arise at any point in time and space.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Could you try explaining this a bit better, please.

If it's a quote from that page, I'm guessing it can be out of context and I'm not totally dumb in not understanding.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That cartoon is really sad. It shows how people will trust in God and ignore all the factors, some of which they might be able to control, which lead to pain and death.

 

Who says mind is reality and reality mind?
Is this one of the premises in your own argument?
If so it is a far cry from the KCA being discussed.
If not then on what basis do you assert that as being either valid or indeed sound?

If you're going to assert something as a misunderstanding, perhaps you could actually explain why it is rather than just post some random anonymous quote (at least I presume it is?) from someone to somebody else about some topic that "involves" tautology but might have no bearing at all on the matter in hand.
Can you do that, please?

While a tautology is at least a valid argument and is thus a step closer to offering a sound argument than Syne has achieved thus far, how do you intend to show that the tautology has meaning outside of itself, i.e. has actual use outside of its own closed logic?

There are considerable premises in here that would need explaining to even be able to begin assessing the argument as valid.
What does it mean for reality to "know itself"?
To know something is surely a consciousness-centric activity?
Is one of your premises that the universe is conscious of itself, and has always been so even before the advent of life in the cosmos?

And again, how does this relate to the KCA, or any of the varieties so far presented?
I'm not saying it doesn't, but I'm struggling to see the relevance.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As James R said, taking me too literally, you don't have to respond to me, but was that in some way trying to answer my question?

 

Noted.

I'll just add in general (I'm addressing all of this thread's readers now) that fashioning valid logical arguments both for God's existence and for infinite regresses (or for any conclusion at all) would seem to me to be trivial, if we are just interested in logical validity and not interested in whether or not our premises are plausible or true.

P1: If soil is chocolate, then causes regress infinitely into the past.

p2: Soil is chocolate.

C: Causes regress infinitely into the past.

This looks absurd, but it's a logically valid example of modus ponens. Logical validity is simply a matter of the form of arguments.

If A then B
A
Therefore B

Is the valid argument form whose syllogistic version was named modus ponens by the medieval logicians. Any argument that takes that form is going to be logically valid. In other words if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true as well. They are logically linked. The premises and the conclusion don't actually have be true in order for that to be the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

We could easily replace B with 'God exists' and then choose any A we like, and it would remain a logically valid argument for God's existence, as long as the form doesn't change.

This is why I think that the question of the soundness of Craig's KCA (not only whether its form is logically valid but whether each of its premises is plausible and true) is a more interesting and enlightening question then merely whether it is logically valid.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

 

Sure, but if it isn't valid then by definition it can not be sound.
My view is that it is better to address the validity first as only then will you have a clear understanding of what premises are needed in order to make the argument valid.

To that end, though, I would at least like to move on to the assessment of Craig's ontological argument, as that is the argument that takes him from "the universe was caused" to "God did it".
If people wish to discuss the soundness I will chip in, but my focus will remain on matters of validity.
And hopefully I won't be sidetracked by people with flawed or indeed non-existent notions of validity.
But work beckons, so will get back to it later...

 

That we wouldn't choose to call it God wouldn't mean God doesn't exist.

My answer to that is, based on the first premise, I don't know.

Then you've moved away from the first premise, and introduced a straw man, and desperately trying to create the fallacy you claim of the argument. It's laughable.

The first premise explains that things that begin to exist, have a cause. You are introducing God into the premises as though God, or the notion of God is within it. What is your justification for that?

What's really amusing is that you have to change the premises, to actually beg the question, then claim that the actual premise begs the question, based on the ideas you implement, while the actual premises does no such thing. It only deals with everything that begins to exist, which is purely a metaphysical claim, not a theistic one.

You're objection is a deception, which you must force into the premise, like a virus. Once convinced you can add anything that correlates with the deception. It's like printing you're own money.

We both know, I don't need a get out clause, because the argument is sound, and valid. I don't have to make stuff up, to convince myself of the validity. Yet you have to do just that to create the illusion that you have a real point.

I didn't say the statements were alike. What is alike is the insubstantial excuses. In this case you create new premises which beg the question, then claim (in light of the new deception) that the premise begs the question. Or when backed into a corner (your position), you retort ''there is no evidence of God, which is why I don't believe God exists''). Both excuses are filled with no substance, whatsoever. They're simply made up.

I don't need Yazata's point to look for credibility. The KCA is credible enough, once your honest.
It has raised doubts for centuries, only to slap them upside the head. This one that Barker raises, is probably the daftest of the bunch.

jan.

 

Yet you clearly don't understand the actual argument raised against it by Barker, thus why it is an actual legitimate criticism should there be the hidden assumption that God is the only thing that does not begin to exist.
In cases where there is either the assumption that there are more than one thing that does not exist, or where there is simply an unknown number (one of which may or may not be God), then the argument given - in the absence of Craig's ontological argument - is demonstrably invalid as it picks God out as the cause rather than any other possible thing that might not begin to exist.
Either way, the argument is either invalid or begging the question.
But you don't comprehend that.
In fact you haven't actually raised any rebuttal in the 370+ posts on this thread thus far that shows you truly comprehend the actual criticism raised by Barker, let alone the basics of the logic upon which it is founded.

It is one thing to show you understand and to then put forth cogent rebuttals, but to simply show that you don't understand makes me realise just how pointless it is to try to hold a meaningful discussion on the matter of logic with you.

 

@ Baldeee

I've already said your argument was logically valid. I'm not sure why you complain so much about that validity being due to tautology. Tautologies are logically valid. Begging the question is an informal fallacy that has no effect on the logical validity. With all of your claims of expertise on (and only wanting to evaluate for) validity, you'd think you'd know that.

P1: All physical things require a cause.​

Your first premise asserts two things.

1. Physical things exist
2. Causation exists​

From these two alone, we can infer that, unless stated otherwise, causes are physical. Barring any other premises, we must assume these causes an infinite regress, because no other options are available within the given premise.

P2. Only the physical exists.​

We are not allowed to make assumptions unstated in the premises if we are strictly evaluating for validity. So from P1, we would have no reason to interject anything other than the stated assumptions (like anything other than physical things). The only reason P2 exists is to rule out some other unknown or unstated argument. It is wholly unnecessary for the conclusion. The only premises required in a valid argument are those that guarantee a true conclusion. The conclusion could still be true if P2 were false, so P2 isn't needed to establish C1.

C1. Infinite regress of physical causation.
​

Seeing as your premises do not explicitly declare a beginning or things other than physical, there's no need to explicitly exclude either (unless you are evaluating soundness, which you keep asserting you are not...yet). Hence, P2 is superfluous and C1 tautological. P2 might as well be replaced with 'there is no beginning', because at least that explicitly states something relevant to deducing the conclusion. Oops, but I wasn't meaning to do your work for you.


But...assuming for the moment that it is not a vacuous tautology... It lacks any explanatory power whatsoever. It neither explains why/how physical causation nor the whole infinite chain exists. So one way or another it is meaningless.

So why did you feel you needed to exclude it?

 

Yet your first line of that response was: "Your conclusion does not follow from the premises given"
I suppose now you'll tell me that this doesn't mean that you were saying the argument is invalid?

The second sentence in your response you say: "but it doesn't need to because the conclusion is a tautology"
So here you are clearly saying that while the conclusion doesn't follow (i.e. the argument is invalid) the conclusion is on its own a tautology.
And you think that that says that the argument is somehow valid rather than just the conclusion being a tautology?
So I reply that the conclusion Is not a tautology, that the argument in its entirety is not invalid, and explain why.
And now you think that I am somehow complaining about what you have already agreed with??
Why do you bother posting such inane rubbish??

Until you can actually understand the criticism, please don't bother responding.

This is incorrect.
There is no way to infer that causes are physical from those two things alone, nor from the first premise as written.
There are options available within the premise, such as the non-physical existing and being a cause.
P1 (even broken down to 1 and 2) do not rule this out.

Your mistake here is with assuming that P1 somehow rules out the existence of the non-physical, whether as a cause or not.
P1 simply states that the physical exists and needs a cause.
No mention of the non-physical.
Thus P2 is required to eliminate the non-physical as a possibility.

There's little point in examining the rest until you understand you error above.

Did you ask for a meaningful example?
No, just a simple example, and you can't even understand that.​

Because I am not convinced self-causation can be regarded as a causal loop.
If you do then you can happily ignore that part.

But please at least try to understand the basics.
Otherwise it is tedious discussing with you when you think you know everything when it is clear you don't.

 

You'll note, Baldeee, how Syne can't even comprehend his own posts, and how he clambers to try to assert the intellectual authority he so desperately seems to want. Not only that but he tries to educate you by repeating points that you have already raised. It's a wonder you keep replying to his efforts.

You are quite correct, though: he did state your argument as being invalid by claiming the conclusion didn't follow, and then said that your conclusion was in itself a tautology. And here he is trying extricate himself from that assessment, at least in part, with the other part still owing to his woeful comprehension of logic.
To state that the premise "All physical things require a cause" somehow allows one to validly conclude that causes are physical unless otherwise stated demonstrates his poor understanding. If he is capable of making such basic errors then best leave him to his own delusions. No matter how many times he is informed of his error he seems oblivious to it, or simply incapable of understanding it, or perhaps his arrogance just won't let him acknowledge it. Either way, it makes discussing it with him a waste of effort and in no small way an irrelevancy to the matter in hand.

Ultimately your choice, though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That is ridiculous.

Try this one:

T1: All unicorns require a horn.

That premise does not asserts these two things:

1. Unicorns exist
2. Horns exist
​

That, also is ridiculous, unless one uses a crazy definition of "require".

We can accept that horns exist without believing that all horns are on unicorns.

This, also, is ridiculous. There are no restrictions on cause and effect whatsoever in that premise.

Why do people insist on trying to sneak in propositions?

Did you just write that?

Your entire modus operandi is making assumptions unstated in the premises!

 

Says who? Provide your evidence.

The only love you display here is your love of judgement, so how could you possibly know? You aren't even aware of the fact that Heaven exists!