Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
If that thing exists then that thing is included within the term "everything" - yet you wish God to be distinct from everything.
You have said as much.
Hence your inconsistency: you want God to be distinct from everything, you state everything is "all that exists" yet you claim God exists.
If you can't admit the simple inconsistency in what you have said then you are either deliberately dishonest or a lost cause with regard understanding even the simplest of logic.
It's not difficult.
But then the Simms don't claim that "everything is all that exists" and then posit something that exists that is outside of everything, thus invalidating the initial claim.
You do.
I think we're done here, Jan, as being a thread about a logical argument it does require that participants have at least a grasp of formal logic which it is quite abundantly clear you lack.
There should also be at least a minimum level of decency with regard acknowledging one's insconsistency, a minimum level you not only fail to reach but merely compound that failure each time you try to argue your way out of it.
No doubt. You seem to have problems with the English language.
So a quick question: If it's true that, "Everything that is a carrot is orange," does that mean that everything is orange?
Yet the cause-er of The Simms exists. And we include the cause-er of The Simms within the label of "everything". You can not exclude the causer from "everything", claim the causer exists, and then claim that "everything is all that exists".
No it's not. It's a matter of logic.
But once again you have shown that you clearly do not understand the basics of logic, of what is a valid argument or not.
And rather than come up with an actual rebuttal, that shows the flaws, you merely cry foul.
Why do you bother?
And to repeat: there is nothing in any of the above lines (lines 1 to 3) that can lead to the conclusion in line 4, as explained previously. Only invalid logic can lead to the conclusion in line 4 given lines 1 to 3. Let's examine it again 'cos you never know, one day you might grasp it:
Everything (meaning all that exists) that begins to exist has a cause. This line says that all those things that exist that begin to exist has a cause. It says nothing about all the things that don't begin to exist. Agreed?
The universe began to exist. This is simply a claim / a premise. We can dispute its soundness later, but for the sake of this formal argument you have put together let us accept it.
The universe was caused. This follows from the first two lines quite validly if we accept that the universe is included within the label of "everything".
Therefore the uncaused cause-er (God) exists. Nope, this simply doesn't follow. Line 1 merely gives a relationship between everything that begins to exist and the need for them to have a cause. There is nothing in that that states the existence of uncaused. It also doesn't say that if there is anything that is uncaused that this would have causal agency.
So perhaps you could outline exactly why you think line 1, or indeed lines 1 to 3, lead to the conclusion you have given in line 4?
No, it stems from your inconsistency and your inability to understand or apply valid logic.
Eh??? The uncaused cause does not necessarily exist. This is not supported by anything you have written in lines 1 to 4. It is an unsupported claim, and certainly not by the logical (I use that word advisedly) argument you have put forward.
Please explain how you get from lines 1 to 3 to your conclusion in line 4 - and do so clearly and consistently?
Also please explain your latter argument, how you reached your conclusion that the "uncaused cause necessarily exists"?
Seeing as you want to play 'let's pick and choose which definition to take literally, let's look at the definition further, and incorporate that.
Everything - The universe is everything that exists.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
The universe was caused.
Therefore God, the uncaused cause-er exists.
You're not being logical at all. You're clearly playing semantics to avoid the logical conclusion.
Jan.
Sarkus,
Here is another definition taken from the definitions.
Every object and entity is a part of everything, including all physical bodies
Everything (every object and entity is a part.. ...including all physical bodies) that begins to exist has a cause.
What could it say?
The universe is what is commonly regarded as everything. And it began to exist. If you know something that was not caused then say so.
Line 1 takes for granted, as does the definition that everything that known, is caused. The onus is on you to show that not every thing is caused, and therefore requires no causual agent.
Jan.
Here is another definition taken from the definitions.
Every object and entity is a part of everything, including all physical bodies
Everything (every object and entity is a part.. ...including all physical bodies) that begins to exist has a cause.
Sarkus said:
What could it say?
The universe is what is commonly regarded as everything. And it began to exist. If you know something that was not caused then say so.
Line 1 takes for granted, as does the definition that everything that known, is caused. The onus is on you to show that not every thing is caused, and therefore requires no causual agent.
Jan.
Last edited:
It's not a matter of taking them literally, Jan, it's a matter of applying the logically. Something that you seem utterly incapable of doing.
Sure - and in doing that you are saying that anything outside of the Universe, that is not a part of the universe or the entirety of the universe, does not exist. So if it exists (as you claim God does) then it must be part of the universe. Do you agree to that implication of what you are saying in that definition? It does go against your previous assertion that God is distinct from everything.
It doesn't matter how you define everything, Jan, it is the form of the logic of this argument that is faulty: line 4 simply does not result from lines 1 to 3. It is simply not a valid conclusion. It is valid to line 3 but line 4 is just assertion, not validly supported by lines 1 to 3.
So rather than just reassert it again and again, actually explain it.
You're deflecting, Jan. Ask anyone else if I'm not being logical, or simply playing semantics and they'll say the same things I am (and they have done). So quit avoiding, quit crying foul when none exist, and quit your pathetic avoidance tactics.
Please.
The first line of this merely says that every object and entity is a part of everything. It does not say that "everything" is limited to just those things.
The second is merely referring to those things within "everything" that begins to exist, and says that those things have a cause.
So what is new here?
I know of nothing that was not caused, but that is not to say that they don't exist.
No, that speaks to the SOUNDNESS of the argument, not the VALIDITY. We haven't even begun to address the SOUNDNESS as you simply can't get past the issues of VALIDITY.
And that, Jan, is simply question-begging, as explained in the very first post of this thread.
I await your next effort to blanket, with your ignorance of logic, the issues raised in this thread in an effort to smother the thread into the grave.
OK, so, if god exists, then god is included in the Universe.
The problem here is that god is now part of the universe, so god began to exist and was caused. So now god is not uncaused, but might conceivably be its own cause.
God is neither included or excluded.
We are talking about what begins to exist.
We don't know of something named God that begins to exist. So why assume something that does not occur.
There is no need to assume God as being part of the universe.
Jan.
If the universe is everything, how can there be anything outside of the universe, as all THINGS are caused, including the universe which is defined as everything.
God, is the uncaused cause-er, or whatever term you want to use.
Jan.
If that's what you're talking about (and I'm glad you figured that out), then you should explicitly say that.
We also don't know much about the entire contents of the universe. So why do you want to make assumptions about the entire universe but not god?
There is no need, but you said that the universe was everything that exists. If that was the case, then if god exists then god is part of the university. So you have to define the universe in some other way.
Jan Ardena:
Also, consider the argument I raised here, concerning the fallacy of composition:
http://sciforums.com/threads/kalam-...e-existence-of-god.154797/page-3#post-3352945
You can see that the conclusion (3) here does not follow from (1) and (2), I hope.
The reason is that "the Simms world" is not itself a "thing within the Simms world", so premise (1) does not apply to it.
To make a valid argument about the necessity for a cause of the Simms world, you need a premise that things outside the Simms world require causes.
Similarly, when it comes to the actually Kalam argument concerning the universe, premise (1) about things within the universe needing to have causes does not necessitate that the universe as a whole needs a cause. That's a fallacy of composition.
See?
Your re-formulation of your example correctly makes clear that the existence of "the creator of the Simms world" is assumed in the first premise of the argument. This means that the argument as a whole is begging the question. See?
Also, consider the argument I raised here, concerning the fallacy of composition:
http://sciforums.com/threads/kalam-...e-existence-of-god.154797/page-3#post-3352945
Let's re-cast that one in terms of the Simms world.James R said:
1. Every thing within the Simms world that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Simms world began to exist.
3. Therefore the Simms world has a cause.
2. The Simms world began to exist.
3. Therefore the Simms world has a cause.
You can see that the conclusion (3) here does not follow from (1) and (2), I hope.
The reason is that "the Simms world" is not itself a "thing within the Simms world", so premise (1) does not apply to it.
To make a valid argument about the necessity for a cause of the Simms world, you need a premise that things outside the Simms world require causes.
Similarly, when it comes to the actually Kalam argument concerning the universe, premise (1) about things within the universe needing to have causes does not necessitate that the universe as a whole needs a cause. That's a fallacy of composition.
See?
Last edited:
Regarding Jan's contortions as to whether or not "God" is included as part of "Everything".
Premise (1) of the KCA says
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Now, if God is part of "Everything", then (1) tells us that if God begins to exist then God has a cause. Therefore, God cannot be the Supreme Uncaused Cause that Jan wants him to be if God begins to exist.
On the other hand, if God is not a part of "Everything", then premise (1) can be re-written to make this explicit:
1. Everything (understood as everything other than God) that begins to exist has a cause.
But this begs the question by assuming that God exists from the start.
There remains only one other alternative if we are to include "God" in "Everything" and to provisionally accept the validity of the Kalam argument, which is that God did not begin to exist.
But that brings us full circle back to the opening post of this thread, and to the question that Jan keeps avoiding over and over:
If Jan's answer to this is "Yes", then Jan must be able to name at least one thing other than God that did not begin to exist.
It's been 115 posts so far. There's been deathly silence from Jan on this point. I don't expect that will change.
Premise (1) of the KCA says
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Now, if God is part of "Everything", then (1) tells us that if God begins to exist then God has a cause. Therefore, God cannot be the Supreme Uncaused Cause that Jan wants him to be if God begins to exist.
On the other hand, if God is not a part of "Everything", then premise (1) can be re-written to make this explicit:
1. Everything (understood as everything other than God) that begins to exist has a cause.
But this begs the question by assuming that God exists from the start.
There remains only one other alternative if we are to include "God" in "Everything" and to provisionally accept the validity of the Kalam argument, which is that God did not begin to exist.
But that brings us full circle back to the opening post of this thread, and to the question that Jan keeps avoiding over and over:
Is there anything that "did not begin to exist" other than God?
If Jan's answer to this is "No", then the Kalam argument begs the question, as I have explained at length.
If Jan's answer to this is "Yes", then Jan must be able to name at least one thing other than God that did not begin to exist.
It's been 115 posts so far. There's been deathly silence from Jan on this point. I don't expect that will change.
Last edited:
Is this thread then really about whether God (whatever God is), is logically necessary?
But suppose God does exist and logical necessity has nothing to do with it. God exists because humans need God. If they didn't, God would not exist and nor would religions, or means of connection to God. Here, I mean God in general, not one worshipped by a particular group.
So shouldn't the question be why do we need this "God", when did we start needing, and why do we still need God despite all the logical arguments?
But suppose God does exist and logical necessity has nothing to do with it. God exists because humans need God. If they didn't, God would not exist and nor would religions, or means of connection to God. Here, I mean God in general, not one worshipped by a particular group.
So shouldn't the question be why do we need this "God", when did we start needing, and why do we still need God despite all the logical arguments?
Last edited:
It's a thread specifically about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which aims to show that God is at least a logical necessity for our universe (if we assume that it began).
Your other questions and points, while of merit, are not really applicable to this thread which is with regard the soundness and validity of the KCA.
See, even in this statement you can't seem to get your thoughts flowing logically...
You seem to think that it is because "all THINGS are caused" that you can conclude that if the universe is everything then how can there be anything outside of the universe? The "all THINGS are caused" is a non sequitur, it has no bearing on the first statement with regard offering explanation.
Simply put, if the universe is defined as everything then logically there can be nothing outside of the universe. That includes no God.
Oh, that's right, you want to exclude god from everything, but then define everything as all that exists, but also want God to exist, despite having separated God from everything. So really you're saying that "everything is all that exists, except God who also exists but is not included under the label of everything."
Am I getting warmer with regard understanding you, because at the moment you're all over the shop with your definitions, your logic and your consistency.
So you keep claiming, but unfortunately you have not shown how you reach that assertion through consistent valid logic. And until you do you are simply a stuck record playing the same assertion over and over again, seeming to refuse to show how you get there from the premises you set up, or that are set up in the KCA.
To be fair, Jan did say that perhaps matter and energy did not begin to exist, but explained that it would need a causal agency to instigate any movement/change (I.e. without a cause it is inert, dead etc).
Hence the point Baldeee and myself made about the key being that God is assumed to be the only thing that did not begin to exist that also has causal agency.
Sarkus said:
Well, I think the Cosmological Argument and the Anthropological argument (presented somewhat roughly in my post) are hard to separate. Humans began to exist.
When the universe began to exist, did it contain a logical future in which humans would exist? Have humans questioned both the existence and the beginning of the universe, and of themselves (of course they have, viz this thread for example)?
How does this imply an initial "uncaused" cause? Perhaps the implication is a failure of logic.
That is, the Kalam cosmological argument attempts a logical explanation which isn't needed.
God exists because humans can experience what God is (although a lot of us deny this). This God is not extratemporal at all; the" cosmological God" is an attempt to extend causation back to the beginning, or even back to before humans existed, that is, to beyond any human experience; but God doesn't exist for humans, if no humans are around to understand what God really is.
Just sayin'.
Last edited: