The kalam cosmological argument (KCA) for God’s existence goes as follows:
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
When we consider what kind of cause would be necessary to bring the universe into being, we arrive at an immaterial, eternal, spaceless, personal, intelligent, and powerful being – an apt description of what theists identify as God. Atheists commonly object and theists often wonder, “Well, then who made God?” Theists rightly point out that the argument does not claim everything has a cause, but only those things that begin to exist. As an eternal being, God never began to exist, and thus does not need a cause. Indeed, the question itself is nonsensical given the kind of being God is.
We apologists must be careful, however, not to think that the 1st premise of the KCA proves God does not have a cause. The premise only pertains to things which begin to exist. We cannot infer anything about the causal requirements or lack thereof for eternal beings from this premise. While the 1st premise of the KCA does not require that God have a cause, to think it proves God does not have a cause is to commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent:
(1) If A, then B [If Bono is an American citizen, then he is a human being]
(2) Not A [Bono is not an American citizen]
(3) Therefore not B [Therefore Bono is not a human being]
Applied to the 1st premise of the KCA, the fallacy works this way:
(1) If A, then B [If X begins to exist, X has a cause]
(2) Not A [X did not begin to exist]
(3) Therefore not B [Therefore X does not have a cause]
The 1st premise of the KCA only tells you that contingent things require a cause, not that eternal things do not require a cause. It could be the case that all things – including those that never begin to exist – need a cause. Like the eternal indentation caused by an eternal ball resting on an eternal cushion from eternity past, it is at least possible that the cause of the universe requires a logically prior cause.
If we are going to conclude that God has no cause, a separate argument is needed. One way to argue that God cannot be caused is by demonstrating the incoherence of an infinite past. To terminate an otherwise infinite regress, we need an uncaused causer (which is what theists understand God to be). This first cause, by virtue of being the first cause, cannot have a temporally/logically prior cause. And given Ockham’s Razor, which says we should not multiply entities beyond necessity, there is no reason to think the cause of the universe has a logically prior cause apart from some argument to the contrary.[1]
Another way of demonstrating that God has no cause is by offering a successful ontological argument. If God is the greatest conceivable being, and it is greater to have being within oneself rather than to derive it from a transcendent source, then God must be an uncaused being.
[1]Of course, to avoid the infinite regress one must eventually come to a being that has no temporal or logical cause; i.e. a being whose existence is necessary. So even if we think the cause of the universe may itself have a cause, that being—or one of the beings who preceded it—must be an uncaused being.
Thinking to Believe 
June 19, 2012 at 5:40 pm
The KCA is actually very easy to take apart, since it’s based on fallacies and factual errors. For instance claiming that the universe had to be created by “an immaterial, eternal, spaceless, personal, intelligent, and powerful being” cannot be supported, since we have no evidence of ANYTHING intelligent being immaterial, eternal or spaceless. In fact, we have no evidence of anything AT ALL being eternal.
And claiming an immensely powerful being as the “first cause” isn’t supportable, since EVERY example of complexity we know of has far simpler origins, and we have predictions from theories in physics and mathematics that could explain universes forming from a dynamic vacuum, black holes or other possibilities that would be FAR simpler and naturalistic (important, because we’ve only ever revealed that supposed supernatural claims were actually naturalistic, never the other way around).
Using Occam’s Razor as SUPPORT for the existence of God is like using Bill Gates as an example of a pauper. NOTHING could possibly be more complex than the concept of an all-powerful God…by definition! Occam’s Razor supports the most simple, naturalistic explanation…and postulating an omnipotent supernatural entity requires the acceptance of two things for which there is simply no evidence.
Asking the question “What created God” is perfectly reasonable, since it’s entirely possible we live in a virtual universe. If so, then any gods that may exist in our universe may have been created by a being no more powerful than your average computer programmer. It’s a plausible scenario and thus the question atheists ask is perfectly valid.
I explore these and many more refutations in the following video:
The only RATIONAL answer is to say…”We don’t know.”
LikeLike
June 19, 2012 at 6:43 pm
derekmathias:
This is an irrelevant objection since the KCA is a deductive argument. If its premises are true and its logic valid then God exists. It’s as if you are saying: “We have no evidence for God’s existence except for the proof you provided and I failed to refute.”
In classical theism God is simple (i.e., not composed of parts). If we follow your line of thought we move towards the existence of God, not away from it.
You have it exactly backwards (see divine simplicity).
Anything is possible, but not everything is likely. As a computer programmer myself I find nothing plausible about your scenario at all. If you think it’s so easy to create a virtual universe, please explain how you would program a computer to (1) be conscious, (2) experience qualia, and (3) exhibit inherent intentionality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
June 19, 2012 at 7:54 pm
@ derekmathias… Ockham’s Razor is more about the number of causal entities and less about the complexity of the causal entity. What William of Ockham actually said was, “Multiple entities should never be invoked unnecesssarily.” (As quoted by Paul Vincent Spade in “Ockham’s Nominalist Metaphysics: Some Main Themes” in Cambridge Companion to Ockham). Of more value than Ockham is the explanatory power of the causal entity. In this case, I’m inclined to lean more towards the simple “computer programmer” you argue for, rather than a complex super-blackhole or a super complex dynamic vacuum (because a normal one has not produced anything that endures).
The origin of the universe is an important question that most people ask. You are doing yourself a dis-service if you limit your options to only empircal/scientific evidence and not what relition/philosophy has to offer.
LikeLike
June 19, 2012 at 11:57 pm
I have spent a significant chunk of my life reading about and thinking about computer science. I also have a bachelors degree in an information technology related field. I have often thought about whether or not our universe could exist inside a computer somewhere. I would like to address the last paragraph of derekmathias’s post.
Firstly, you use the phrase “no more powerful than the average computer programmer”. Intentionally or not, I believe you are misrepresenting the capabilities of the “average computer programmer”. When someone writes software, they are in full control of it. They have the power to create and destroy and they define the rules. They could create a universe were gravity is twice as powerful as it is in ours, or they can create a universe where no gravity exists at all.
Secondly, I believe that for someone to digitally create a universe on the scale of ours would be a gratuitous and unnecessary waste of resources. The computer that would be necessary to emulate our universe would have to be unfathomably powerful. Imagine light. Right now, a nearly infinite number of light rays are currently reflecting off of your body. A computer would have to continuously calculate and keep track of each one of these nearly infinite number of light rays. The computer that could accomplish this task alone would be truly monumental and yet it would not be nearly sufficient because in order to emulate our universe the computer would have to be capable of calculating and keeping track of the nearly infinite number of light rays that reflect, refract, and pass through every object currently in existence throughout the entirety of our universe. And this is simply a small subset of the incredible number of tasks that a computer would have to accomplish in order to emulate our universe for even a miniscule moment in time.
It may even be impossible for a computer this powerful to exist, given issues of latency. Latency is the time it takes for digital information to travel from one point to another. A computer that would attempt emulate our world may necessarily be so large that the discrete components of the computer would not be able to communicate fast enough (given a maximum speed limitation such as the speed of light, which digital information must abide by) to perform accurate calculations. These are the gratuitous aspects.
The unnecessary aspect comes from the fact that any civilization that would be capable of constructing this computer would not need to and would have better uses for the resources. Any civilization this advanced would likely have a full understanding of their fundamental existence through mathematics, and would be able to simulate how any other universe would be through mathematical calculation. It would be unnecessary for any civilization to build this supercomputer to emulate our world because any answers that the supercomputer could provide would also be provided by relatively simple mathematical calculations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 20, 2012 at 4:34 am
William Lane Craig does well at discussing the KCA (he can be found at his web page “Reasonable Faith” and at “leadership U” or search his name in Google). Scientists are quick to state that time, space, matter, and energy began at the big bang (BB) singularity event (be they Christian or not…it’s in the cosmology textbooks…if that tickles your fancy) and if that is the case then whatever initiated the BB is not limited to or restricted to that which was started. St Augustine was the first to reply to the question “What was God doing before He Created the Universe?” Doing nothing is not an answer but that God is not in temporal time as we are. But that, ‘God is eternal and being eternal does not mean having so much time that one need not count it away, but rather that God is outside of time and not limited/affected by it.’ This would also be true with space and energy and matter. God did not create matter anyway…He set up the process of gravity and chemistry and fusion whereby the stars cook hydrogen into the matter we now are made from. If God is ‘limited’ to anything He is limited and/or affected by the abstract attributes that define His character: love, integrity, fairness, justice, perfection, etc etc. Any’thing’ that we cannot define materialistically and yet have a value system for would be of impact to Him. Not that it changes Him but that it; “gets…His Interest”. Another point is the definition of ‘thing’. We consider our world made of solid things…and yet at the atomic structure level all ‘things’ are 99.9999% empty space…it is the negative valance electron bending the adjacent negative valance electron in the ‘touched’ thing that gives us the sense of feeling/touch. Electrons are really mass-less particles of energy (they are always moving very fast). For all intents and purposes we might as well be in a giant hologram. So what does God ‘supply’ into the creation we now are bent on figuring out? That’s sort of easy…all the abstracts and then these: Information (which always points toward an Intelligence – it’s a forensics search), Forces (such as gravity), Relationships (deemed understandable via mathematics – i.e. the constants of the universe). Interestingly enough mathematics is an abstract concept…the concept of 3 means little unless one attaches some’thing’ to it. We were never taught that 2+3=5; rather we were taught that; 2 apples + 3 apples = 5 apples. Then they said take the apples away and it still works. Abstractly, one can then place any’thing’ (there is that word “thing” again) adjacent to the numbers and it should make ‘sense’ and allow for testing of more complex theories…hence physics and chemistry and redshift and on and on and on. We are set here curious to figure this out our problem is that we like to complicate Occam’s Razor is often poorly applied.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 20, 2012 at 7:03 am
OK, so now we have a God, and he created the universe… Now what? You have described the God I believe in, the God of first cause. Who created the universe, the laws and it’s properties. Now, 14 billion years later, we are here. Now how to we get from billions of years of evolution to 6,000 years and a guy in the sky? So how do we get to the modern Christian, who believes that God is a being in the sky and we were made in his likeness? As a Deist, I see God as a first cause, creating the laws that govern the universe. I believe in billions of years and evolution, not thousands of years and Adam and Eve, it doesn’t make sense to me. I just don’t see how Theists describe a Deistic God and think that can lead people to a revealed God from a few thousand years ago. To assume that Gods needs to exist is enough assuming for me. To also assume he wrote the Bible, and Jesus has always been alive, and these old people knew for sure that he was God, and walked on water, and rose from the dead, unicorns and dragons used to exist, giants used to roam the earth and people used to live for 900 years. The jump is too much for me. I will assume a first cause, because it makes sense to me that there must be a beginning, but I can’t make the jump to theism, it is too far of a stretch.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 7:48 am
Jason:
You don’t have to be a young earth creationist to be a Christian. And Christians don’t believe in a “guy in the sky”. God is an immaterial being.
To be made in God’s “likeness” does not mean that we physically resemble God. Exactly what is meant is debated. For what it’s worth, I am of the opinion that it means humans are analogous to God in the sense that they have stewardship over the earth like God has stewardship over the universe.
Note that some arguments from natural theology intend to prove that God is both the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. If God is the Sustainer of the universe then that implies theism, not deism, is true.
Part of the problem might be that you think Christians merely assume the Bible is inspired (we do not believe God literally put pen to paper). We believe Jesus rose from the dead because that is where the historical evidence leads us. The resurrection is a vindication of Jesus’ ministry and therefore we have reason to take his words seriously (e.g., that he is the eternal God). As for “unicorns and dragons” I think this can be chalked up to you misunderstanding the Bible (if you have specific passages in mind you can bring them up). What to make of the ages in Genesis 5 and the narrative of Genesis 6:1-4 (giants?) are fair questions that are discussed within Christian circles.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 9:44 am
Not at all. Despite being a deductive argument, the KCA is predicated on observations from our universe. For instance, the claim that this so-called first cause must be omniscient is that the universe is so finely tuned for life–change one constant even a little bit, and stars can’t form and thus life as we know it can’t form. But you can’t base a claim on a SINGLE sample. We don’t know the factors that go into making a universe, and for all we know there inherently is no other way for a universe to form in the first place. Or universe creation could be a selective process which, as seen in evolution, can turn the highly improbable into the virtually certain. Finally, the argument that our universe is actually finely tuned for life is spurious at best, since well over 99.999999% of the universe is so overtly HOSTILE to life that we would die almost instantly. Additionally, we can successfully model the formation of our universe if we change MULTIPLE constants, even by a large degree, and it appears that the elimination of the weak nuclear force could still allow the formation of our universe. Thus there is no reason to assume any intelligence to whatever caused our universe.
That classical theism argument is merely an assertion that has no basis in reality. The most complex thing we know of is the human brain. An omniscient mind would be infinitely more complex. And adding omnipotence would only compound the complexity. So saying God is “simple” is like saying humans are simple because we’re entirely constructed of nothing more than atoms, or that the entire universe is simple because all of it is constructed of nothing more than four basic forces and two basic particles. It’s nonsensical.
Evidently you didn’t view the video, or you would know my answer to this. In short, though, you might as well ask a programmer from the 1960s to explain how he would program a computer to beat a human at chess, go or Jeopardy. Today programmers have done just that, but that doesn’t make them any more intelligent than a programmer from the 1960s. It just means that we have access to more advanced hardware and software, as well as a better understanding of how the mind works.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 9:54 am
Job 39:9-12
Isaiah 34:7
Deuteronomy 33:17 mention of unicorns
Deuteronomy 32:33
Revelation 20:2
and many more that mention dragons, satyrs, unicorns, and other fictional creatures.
It’s not a misunderstanding that the bible talks about ficitious creatures as if they’re real, it does. And many other things, like marrying your rapist, owning slaves, taking virgin children for your own, murdering whole cities, making women inferior, etc. There are too many things to list here that are in the bible that are simpy not true. And yes, there are a lot of people who still believe in an anthropomorphic God. Let alone the fact that there aer thousands of different ‘Christians’ who all believe in differnt things. I believe this was their way of explaining the unknown, and don’t think the bible should be taken literally, because a lot of it is embellished by it’s followers.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 9:55 am
“Simplicity” is shorthand for not invoking the unnecessary. If theories in physics predict explanations for the origin of our universe that are naturalistic, then Occam’s Razor suggests we accept those explanations over postulating a supernatural all being, master of time, space and dimension who has a strange obsession with what we do with our genitals.
The entire complexity of our universe can be explained with four basic forces and two basic particles. Why would any dynamic vacuum have to be any more complex than that?
Then I must also be doing myself a disservice by not considering that giant invisible unicorns on Alpha Centauri created our solar system. I can live with that.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 10:02 am
“If God is the Sustainer of the universe then that implies theism, not deism, is true.”
If God sutains the universe, that does not necessarily make him personal. To go straight to theism from sustainer is still a jump. Sustainer could simply mean that he keeps everything going, which he may, but that does not necessarily mean he revealed himself to us through Jesus. Most Christians really worship the book more than they worship a God.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 10:25 am
That’s actually my point. The laws of our universe could be nothing more than creations from the imagination of a computer game designer. Programmers today can model different constants for the universe. Who says one didn’t create a virtual world using the results from just such a model?
That’s a valid question…but unfortunately, I think you’ve missed out on one of the most obvious solutions to your problem of scale. Are you familiar with today’s online games? Do you think each character’s entire details are sent to all the other players participating in those games? No, all that’s sent is a small packet of code identifying what character model to use, which clothing/equipment models to use, and any action model the character is performing. The other players’ computers generate the relatively complex appearance of that character from information stored on their own computers.
What’s my point? That the sheer amount of information used can be an illusion. To create a virtual universe as vast as our apparently “real” universe, you don’t have to create the whole universe…you only need to create PERCEPTION. Right now all I see is my office and all I hear is distant traffic noise. That is ALL any virtual programmer would need to generate for me right now in order for me accept my world as real. If I go somewhere else, look through a microscope at a microbe, or look through a telescope at a distant quasar, all that needs to be generated is what I’m looking at RIGHT THEN. Furthermore, if my mind is nothing but a computer program, there may be no need to even generate an actual virtual world, but only a VIRTUAL VIRTUAL world that resides only in my mind, so that I THINK I’m seeing something when in reality my programming is just convincing me that what I’m seeing is real. Finally, for all I know I could be the ONLY self-aware person in this virtual world, and you and anyone else I communicate with are just sophisticated expert systems designed to provide me with the illusion I’m not the only person in the world.
Do you see how the virtually (pun intended) impossible can rapidly be winnowed down to the quite plausible? Not only that, it appears we may have the technology to actually accomplish this within 1-2 decades.
One other note: Even today we have MANY more virtual worlds (hundreds) than we do “real” worlds (one). Extrapolate that a couple decades out, and it’s plausible to conclude that we’ll have many more real-seeming virtual worlds than our real-seeming current world. So for all we know, it may be FAR more likely that we reside in a virtual world than any “real” one.
If you’re interested in more detail, I explore this issue in the following video:
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 10:30 am
derekmathias:
You are conflating the KCA and the fine-tuning argument together. For the sake of argument, we can grant that the fine-tuning argument is unsuccessful. That still doesn’t effect the KCA. You need to show that a premise is false.
Divine simplicity is supported by arguments from natural theology. Your attempted examples of simplicity (e.g., humans, the universe) show you aren’t paying close attention for they are clearly composed of parts. Don’t confuse the technical use of the term with the everyday use of the term.
You are correct that I didn’t watch your video. Your written response are so far off the mark that I have no reason to believe the video will provide better arguments. I noticed you completely avoided answering my questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 20, 2012 at 10:43 am
derekmathias:
Are you familiar with the problems that consciousness, qualia, and intentionality pose for a purely physical account of the mind? If the mind is not entirely physical then there is no reason to believe that a physical computer can mimic the mind. Since minds are part of this universe we have good reason to believe that they are not created by a physical computer.
And that’s a problem for you. No computer scientist (or anyone else) has the faintest idea of how to get a physical item (such as a computer) to perceive anything. If you accept the problems in the philosophy of mind alluded to above then it seems likely that it is impossible, in principle, for a computer to ever perceive anything (i.e., it is not merely a matter of present ignorance).
They’ve been saying that for decades.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 11:06 am
If by “physical” you mean matter/energy, then I’d say the burden of proof lies in your court. After all, is there ANY evidence the human mind is NOT entirely physical?
That’s called an argument from ignorance fallacy. That same argument was used to claim we couldn’t construct a synthetic cell…until it was done. The same is true for claims that A.I. would never beat a human at chess. Or at Jeopardy. In just my adult life I’ve seen virtual worlds go from non-existent to blocky renditions to almost photo-realistic. Computer technology is growing exponentially (are you familiar with the so-called “Law of Accelerating Returns”?), and arguing that something is impossible or even unlikely because we haven’t YET accomplished it makes about as much sense as a person in 1960 claiming humans will never reach the moon because we couldn’t even get a rocket off the launch pad.
We’re likely within a decade or two from reverse-engineering the human brain. If and when that happens, we should learn a LOT more about how we perceive. Furthermore, we should also be able to reproduce the brain’s function on a computer architecture, allowing us to create machine intelligence. Control the sensory input to the A.I. and you and control what it perceives.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 11:22 am
The fine tuning argument is one of several major arguments used to support the KCA. If the FTA is refuted, then what support is there that any creator is even intelligent?
Furthermore, the KCA commonly includes the claim that God is changeless and timeless. Thinking by definition requires a change in one’s mind over time. If God cannot change and he does not experience time, then logically he should be mindless.
I’ve yet to see an argument from divine simplicity that wasn’t mere assertion. If God is not composed of parts, that means he is a single homogeneous entity. What evidence is there that anything homogeneous is capable of possessing intelligence, much less omniscience and omnipotence? And again, intelligence is the most complex thing for which we have evidence, and the more intelligent a species, the more complex the mind. How can you justify claiming omniscience in something that is so simple it could precede complexity? It doesn’t make logical sense.
The video lays out my refutation of the KCA in an ordered, linear fashion that should make it easy for you to understand the problems inherent with every single step of the KCA.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Jason:
Job 39:9-12, Isa 34:7, and Deut 33:17 mention wild oxen. Deut 32:33 mentions snakes and cobras. Rev 20:2 does mention a dragon but the book of Revelation contains visions. It is not referring to a dragon that people would come across in everyday life. It is easy to find long lists of so-called Bible difficulties but most of these difficulties evaporate upon closer examination.
Regarding a personal God, I agree that a Sustainer of the universe may not be personal. Exactly how God is personal can be debated. My main point is that you can argue for an active deity through natural theology.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 12:34 pm
derekmathias:
The reason I asked whether you were familiar with the problems for a physicalist view of mind is because those problems are evidence that the mind is not physical. It is not an argument from ignorance. It is basically noting that the mind does X and matter does not do X. To fully grasp the problems you will have to study the matter on your own.
If this reverse-engineered human brain doesn’t perceive anything will you admit the mind is not physical? And why would this computer brain provide any more insight than the billions of organic brains? I could stare at your brain all day and I couldn’t tell what you were perceiving at all.
The KCA could prove a First Cause exists without proving it is intelligent. I believe William Lane Craig argues that the First Cause is a mind because it must be non-physical (outside the universe it created) and the mind is the only non-physcial thing we know can cause effects. But you could drop WLC’s point and still prove a First Cause.
The Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas would be a start.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 2:13 pm
derekmathias:
“You are doing yourself a dis-service if you limit your options to only empircal/scientific evidence and not what relition/philosophy has to offer.”
“Then I must also be doing myself a disservice by not considering that giant invisible unicorns on Alpha Centauri created our solar system. I can live with that.”
Your previous statement seems to be a complete refutation of philosophy and religion, which is a defensible position. However, then you make the claim:
“So for all we know, it may be FAR more likely that we reside in a virtual world than any “real” one. ”
Where is the empirical evidence for this claim. The ability of human beings to create virtual worlds says very little about the world that we live in and provides absolutely no empirical evidence in support of the claim. The only thing it says about the “real” world is that it may be a virtual world and it definitely does not say that it is “FAR more likely” than any other scenario that human beings have proposed.
You make the true claim “today we have MANY more virtual worlds (hundreds) than we do “real” worlds (one).” You then claim that because of the existence of hundreds of man-made virtual worlds that it is more likely that the world that we exist in is virtual. I don’t see how you make this jump.
The existence of many virtual worlds cannot cause our universe to be virtual. The existence of many virtual worlds has no affect on the “real” world whatsoever, other than to consume space with in the “real” world.
I might as well make the claim “because there are hundreds of religions, but very few scientific theories on the origin of the universe, then it must be likely that our universe must involve aspects of religion”. But I’m not going to make this claim because it is not true.
You also state that a solution to the problem I proposed of the unfathomable power necessary to re-create our universe digitally would be to only create what you directly perceive. How are you to prove that you are the focal point of this proposed virtual world. Where is the empirical evidence for this claim.
Maybe all living things do actually perceive and the computer must only generate what living things in our universe perceive. How are we to prove that? We could say the same thing about the moon. We could say that everyone sees it but it is really just an illusion. Except we have been to the moon and left scientific instruments on the moon. We have yet to find evidence of any kind of illusory object.
I am unable to tell whether or not you actually entertain the idea of our universe being virtual, or if you are simply using it for another purpose. However if I was a person that completely rejected all nonempirical ideas, then I would have no motivation to consider the “virtual universe theory” to be any more likely than “giant invisible unicorns on Alpha Centauri”.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 4:50 pm
It sounds like you’re clinging to the old perception of the mind as being something other than the product of neural activity. Damage specific portions of the brain, and specific things happen to the mind. There’s no empirical evidence that the brain is anything that is not the direct result of matter.
I don’t think the question makes sense. We have already created cybernetic limbs and organs (including eyes) that can interface with nerves and convey what they perceive to the brain. It’s logical to conclude that a machine brain could interface and perceive with such sensors even more easily, since there would be less conversion required.
For one thing, a computer brain could run, by some estimates, up to 20,000 times faster than a biological brain, thus potentially accomplishing certain tasks 20,000 times faster. Also, a machine brain would not only be unaging, but likely could be backed up to guard against failure.
You could stare at a computer hard drive all day and you couldn’t tell what it was perceiving at all either. That should be obvious. I’m beginning to wonder if you’re using the term “perceive” correctly.
Ah, but a mind is the product of neurochemical activity, and thus IS physical, just as calculations made by a computer are physical. The only non-physical things for which we have evidence are abstracts, like mathematical equations…which are hardly intelligent or powerful on their own. At best they are tools that minds can use. Are you calling God a tool. 😉
That’s an example of what I mean by being based on mere assertion. For instance, Aquinas claims that since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an absolutely good being. But one can just as easily say that all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of evilness, there must exist something that is an absolutely evil being. Thus, an assertion without merit.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 5:17 pm
There ISN’T any evidence. Thus my qualifier, “For all we know it MAY be far more likely…” That means we DON’T know, and thus I make NO claims as to the likelihood of this scenario.
Well, if there actually are, let’s say, thousands of virtual worlds in existence and only one “real” one, and there are (for argument’s sake) an equal number of beings in each world (virtual or real), and we inhabit one of those worlds, the odds are quite small that the world we experience is the “real” one.
Again, this is conjecture, but it has the benefit of being less of a flight of fancy than the concept of a supernatural all being, master of time space and dimension. We KNOW virtual worlds exist (although not to the extent that the virtual worlds we’ve created are completely realistic); we DON’T KNOW that anything supernatural exists. And that is all that is necessary to refute the claim that the KCA proves God exists.
Thus, the only valid answer is…we don’t know.
Good argument! Except that science is based entirely on evidence while religions are not, and we have multiple religions and science that we can actually compare with one another. If we live in a virtual world, we apparently have no means of knowing we are, nor any way to compare with other worlds. Using your analogy, it would be like we lived in a world with only ONE known religion and no way to know if there are any others.
Again, zero evidence. And it could be impossible to test. After all, we might be programmed to be incapable of perceiving any evidence that contradicts the notion that we are “real” beings.
But my point was to show you that it’s unnecessary to create a virtual universe with all the size and detail apparently possessed by our universe. And thus the claim that it would be impossible to create a seemingly full-sized universe isn’t valid.
How do you KNOW we’ve been to the moon? You could have been programmed just to believe you’ve seen the evidence. 😉
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 5:34 pm
derekmathias:
I’m not denying that the brain and mind interact with each other so your example doesn’t overturn my beliefs.
If the mind is immaterial what kind of empirical evidence would you look for?
It isn’t a logical conclusion because cybernetic organs are not conscious. Computers already have many periphals attached to them but they are not concious of that fact.
Since evil is a privation of good in Aquinas’ thought your counter-example doesn’t work. Again, please try to understand the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of religion before making rash judgemnts.
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 11:05 am
[…] my recent post on falsely assuming that God’s eternality excludes the possibility that He has a cause (and […]
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm
I’ve no intention of overturning your beliefs. I’m simply pointing out that all our evidence in neuroscience points to the mind being the product of the brain and is completely physical. Of course you don’t have to believe that, but you should be aware that the evidence contradicts your beliefs.
Since the only “immaterial” things for which we have evidence are abstracts like mathematical constructs, I would look for evidence the same way we do for mathematical truths: measure the effectiveness of their predictions. If the mind is something immaterial and separate from the brain, then damaging portions of the brain wouldn’t necessarily have any effect on the mind. However, since we can connect nearly all mental facilities with specific regions of the brain–damage them and we can predict specific cognitive dysfunction; damage all of them and a person becomes mindless–this is evidence that the mind is a product of the brain, somewhat like electricity is the product of a generator.
Computers aren’t sentient YET. But we’re fast approaching true machine intelligence. Already we have supercomputers that are capable of achieving the hardware speeds of the human brain (and by 2020 we should have that power in a typical laptop). Software does lag behind, but likely by less than a decade, and we have multiple avenues for achieving sentience, perhaps through emergence, perhaps through reverse engineering, or perhaps through some other avenue. Once consciousness is reached, as it likely will before 2030, then connecting machine to machine should be far simpler than connection biological to machine.
Who is to say that evil is a privation of good? One could just as easily say the reverse is true. That’s merely another assertion. Like I said, I’ve yet to see such a claim that wasn’t.
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 2:41 pm
derekmathias:
But the evidence doesn’t contradict my beliefs. The mere fact that neuroscientists can’t empircally study consciousness, qualia, or intentionality does not mean they don’t exist and cause a problem for physicalist views of the mind. The problem with your argument is that you presuppose that neuroscience provides all the evidence concerning the mind when, in fact, it only provides some of the evidence. Stating that “all the evidence in neuroscience points to X” is not the same as saying “all the evidence points to X.”
But that’s not how we judge mathematical truths. Mathematical truths are based on axioms and rules of logic that are independent of any empirical observations. For example, if I want to know the limit of f(x) as x approaches infinity I don’t look at a physical function as it is mapped along a physical x-axis that stretches infinitely into space. Clearly we need something better than this.
Your use of the word “necessarily” gives the game away. If you are going to base your beliefs on predictions and empirical observations you need to suggest an experiment that rules out one hypothesis.
That’s hardly the only interpretation to give the data however. Someone else might propose that the brain is like an antenna and the mind is like a TV signal. If you mess with the antenna (brain) you will get a fuzzy picture (human behavior) even though the TV signal (immaterial mind) has not been effected. Your example is no more evidence for your hypothesis than for this other hypothesis.
Look at the problem of conscious to see why they will likely never be conscious.
But that would involve, in part, machines being able to exhibit inherent intentionality. Currently they only exhibit derived intentionality. There is a huge difference between the two kinds of intentionality and no one has the faintest idea of how matter could, in principle, exhibit inherent intentionality. Don’t confuse computers performing certain functions with true thought.
Why should we believe that more speed (more operations per second?) will result in consciousness?
What does “emergence” mean here? William Hasker (I think I got the name right) believes the mind emerges from the brain much like a magnetic field emerges from a piece of metal. He calls his theory emergent dualism. On his account the mind is immaterial (i.e., not composed of atoms) yet interacts with the brain. If such a mind “emerges” from a piece of computer hardware that would seem to support a dualist account of the mind, not a physicalist account of the mind.
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 2:45 pm
derekmathias:
I forgot to respond to this. Look at Aquinas’ metaphysics and you will understand better where he is coming from. You could call “good” “evil” but then you would be using the opposite definition as everyone else. Nor would defining terms differently actually make what the terms are referring to become non-existent (e.g., you could call cancer “good” or “evil” but, either way, cancer still exists).
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 5:24 pm
I understand what Aquinas said, and I’m not calling good evil. I’m just pointing out that moral concepts can’t be equated to, say, physics, where darkness is the absence of light, or cold is the absence of heat. The absence of either good or evil is neutrality.
LikeLike
June 21, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Of course neuroscience can’t explain ALL of the brain. Not even close! But that doesn’t justify believing in explanations for which there is no evidence. Claiming that a lack of evidence in a field justifies belief in something without evidence is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
I did say “measure the effectiveness of their predictions.” That doesn’t necessitate empirical testing. Abstractions can still be tested for internal consistency. But that’s not the point (see below):
I already did. Damage the brain and the mind is impaired.
Matter and energy are BOTH part of the “physical,” since they are equivalent (e=mc2). So signals created by a brain or antenna are still part of the “physical” world. We don’t have any examples of the immaterial being capable of directly intervening in the universe, much less possessing any intelligence.
That’s news to a LOT of A.I. researchers who are convinced they WILL achieve artificial general intelligence within two decades. I occasionally socialize with several of them, so I pick their brains on the latest updates. While it IS possible there is some mechanism that prevents machine consciousness, they’ve seen no evidence of any yet.
Again, you’re pointing to CURRENT limitations as if they’re relevant to FUTURE possibilities.
I never suggested speed would result in consciousness. I said that CONSCIOUS machines could potentially think up to 20,000 times faster than biological brains. There is a lot more going on in the field of artificial general intelligence than I think you’re aware. I might suggest Ray Kurzweil’s “Age of Spiritual Machines” as an easy starter for the concept.
LikeLike
June 22, 2012 at 4:47 am
TO derekmathias post: June 19, 2012 at 5:40 pm
From time frame 4:22 to 4:26 your video states: “1) Nothing that ultimately begins to exist has any evident cause of its existence.” I stopped right there. Define “nothing.” Further why have the word: “ultimately” there what is it trying to define? Then again how about defining “exist” and “existence”? I think your whole video is summed up nicely in the very last sentence under the jpg for it: “the only RATIONAL answer is to say…We don’t know”.
So then if we don’t know, why are you and I wasting our time being curious about it and rationally trying to conclude this as ‘rationality’? I’d rather (if you were to be a scientist; a reasonably thinking logical person) you understand (and take) BOTH sides of the issue and let the listener determine what ‘fits’ best. Frankly, we humans are unique…perhaps even weird, yet not the center of the universe (for there is no center…anyway), but we ARE able to think too much…I wonder why? Even if there is a God from where did we get our curiosity…God certainly is not curious…and I thought we were made in His image? See what I mean…we think too much? I see your video as your outlook on life as being a glass half empty…that life has no consequence and that we are all just meat robots…mistakes of chemistry and just dust motes…an error of cosmic flotsam. Odd, but even if you think of yourself as such (or is it that you think this of everyone else except you? I hope not) I do not think of you as a mistake. I ‘see’ that behind your materialistic worldview which drifts into a fog of quantum strangeness lies no material but: relationship (even gravity is relationship), information (which points to Intelligence) and forces/numbers (the ‘grammar’ rules/laws of the cosmic creation). Do I believe that there is a boney wiggling finger of God which could scratch “YAHWEH was here” into the regolith of the moon? Don’t be ridiculous; of course not! Besides didn’t the cosmonauts all ready figure out that God is not in the ‘heavens’ when they looked out there space capsule window and said, “I don’t see God”?! No, I ‘see’ a Logos behind the universe, I see there is no such thing as a thing (all things are 99.99% space) and I see that all ‘emptiness’ is full of quantum relationship and has a signature purpose and structure (deeper than we can go without faith). I see that you are a conscious observer and moral agent, that you are here in body but will graduate life through death and your eternal ‘self’ will return to the Logos that ‘popped’ you into that ‘bag-of-mostly-water’. I see that you are not a Darwinian fluke but one who thinks in abstracts and calls them valuable (love, integrity, honesty) who has desires that can’t be met (via entropy) such as fairness and perfections and trust, and who likes poetry, music, art, and a beautiful sunset. Even is your glass is half empty I see your glass as half full…I see that you see through a mirror dimly lit but you do not have to…it’s your choice and your responsibility and you have a capable brain that can choose based on what it is fed (Romans 12:2)! In your words, I wish you LUCK!
LikeLike
June 23, 2012 at 1:30 pm
I thought that was quite clear. We have no evidence that anything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence, thus nothing that begins to exist has any EVIDENT cause of its existence. I could have worded it, “Everything that ultimately begins to exist has no evident cause of its existence” and meant the same thing.
That should also be clear. Since everything we see is an assemblage of particles that existed in a previous form, and a previous form before that, and so on, the only things that ACTUALLY begin to exist are fundamental particles, either generated by the quantum vacuum or the source of our universe. Thus they are the “ultimate” source of what exists.
The problem is that theists claim the KCA as evidence for the existence of God. But it’s not, because it’s based on premises stated as facts, but which we cannot rationally claim as such because there are alternative (and often better) possibilities. Thus we can say we simply don’t know the origin of the universe, but we cannot say that the KCA provides evidence for God.
I have no complaint about anything you’ve said there, except that the notion I’m a glass half empty person. To me, resorting to a God to explain things just shuts down inquiry. When someone resorts to an all powerful, all knowing being, then everything in the universe becomes nothing special–it could have been made pretty much ANY way God desired, and this was his “steaze.” “How did the universe come to be?” “Oh, God did it, case closed.” After all, how can ANYTHING be impressive for someone with unlimited powers? For comparison, what’s more impressive, an omnipotent God who writes an elegant essay, or a four year old kid who writes that same essay? Impressiveness comes more from the relative difficulty of the achievement, rather than on mere power itself.
So if it all unfolded through natural causes, based on interactions between four fundamental forces and two particles, and because of selective forces it became alive and evolved into a myriad of fantastic life forms, culminating (so far) in us, a being capable of figuring out its own origins…wow, that’s impressive, that’s majesty, that’s beauty. And it instantly provides a wealth of inquiry to keep us occupied for a long, long time. If I were to learn we’re nothing but a computer program spawned from the imagination of some game designer, or the result of an experiment by an alien or god, I could live with it…but everything would suddenly become so much duller.
LikeLike
June 23, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Derek,
Forgive me for coming into the discussion a little late. As I stated in another thread, I’m not an advocate of the KCA, and I have not read every post under this thread. I beg your pardon if I misinterpret your latest post. I just happened to glance at this thread and noticed Post 30. You write,
We have no evidence that ice begins to exist at 32 degrees Fahrenheit? We have no evidence that a zygote beings to exist after conception? We have no evidence that light begins to shine off the moon because it is exposed to to sunlight? There is no evidence that a tree begins to burn after being struck with lightning? The whole of our experience with beings beginning to exist confirms the causal principle. Your claim is so demonstrably false that I concluded you must have had something else in mind. What tipped me off is contained in your last sentence. You appear to imply that individual parcels of matter may have a cause, but that ultimately matter itself does not. Alternatively, you may be implying that QM disproves the causal principle because subatomic particles appear at random with no observable cause.
With respect to QM, the conclusion that random particle appearances are uncaused is an invalid logical inference. As Jason and others have noted, science cannot tell us what does not exist by what it fails to observe (see Science Cannot Identify Uncaused Entities).
With respect to matter itself, it is either caused, uncaused, or self-caused. There are no other logical options. If it is caused, then your argument collapses. Moreover, if matter is caused then whatever caused it, by definition cannot be material. Self-causation is impossible on pain of contradiction. That leaves you with arguing that matter is uncaused—it is eternal. Since that is the topic of another active thread, I’ll not get into that here. Suffice it to say that the Thomistic argument renders invalid such a position. It is up to you to demonstrate why it doesn’t. From the other thread, it appears you are very unfamiliar with Thomism, but I’ll wait for you to make that explicit before I explain why the argument that matter is uncaused fails.
LikeLike
June 23, 2012 at 11:39 pm
For some reason the link to Jason’s post begins at the comments section. Simply scroll up to read his post. My apologies.
LikeLike
June 24, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Actually…no! You’re thinking in terms of the macroscopic world, where we give convenient labels to things based on their macroscopic characteristics. That’s why people have let that premise of the KCA slide, because it seems so intuitive. But it’s not true. Sure, we see ice begin to form…but is anything fundamental actually coming into existence? No, ice, a zygote, light shining and a tree burning are all just the same old particles being rearranged into different forms. The saying “we are star stuff” is apt here–our atoms were created in stars, although, THEY were in turn created by earlier stars, and so on until we trace the source of these particles to the Big Bang. THAT (and particles created by quantum fluctuation) is the only real example we have of anything actually beginning to exist.
According to a quantum mechanics professor I interviewed for the video (I don’t pretend to be an expert on QM–it’s one of the most difficult topics I’ve ever studied), it appears it is possible that “quantum zero point fluctuations could be labeled ‘uncaused’, since the zero point agitation is an inherent aspect of quantum mechanics that cannot be tweaked (by cooling, for example) to eliminate the cause.” Thus the possibility of an uncaused universe. That smacks of a semantics issue, however, which is why I personally prefer more concrete explanations, such as the notion that a dynamic vacuum is the cause of our universe, or that our universe was caused by a black hole in another universe, or even that we exist in a virtual universe. But my preference doesn’t negate the possibility that the universe itself is uncaused, though, which is the reason I’ve included the argument in my video in the first place.
LikeLike
June 24, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Derek writes,
This is addressed in the link I supplied.
You state previously,
Then you are refuting the wrong argument. You cannot say that we have no evidence of beings coming to be by appealing to something other than what your opponent is arguing. That is what I referred to when I realized you must be arguing in favor of something else. Consequently, your “Actually…no!” is off target. Things DO come into being with a cause in the macroscopic world.
With respect to parcels of matter being a simple rearrangement of another arrangement, welcome to the club. Classical theists have argued this for centuries. Matter is identified by its form (essence) and the “rearrangement” is the change we see in the cosmos (potency and act).
Regards.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:27 am
The premise is that “Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.” Well, everything that exists is four forces and two particles…that’s it. What you’re referring to is just rearrangements of those particles. If we’re talking about fundamental origins–like the universe or a metaverse or God–then does it make sense to even reference rearrangements of atoms as examples of things beginning to exist? It would make the whole first premise spurious.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:55 am
Derek writes,
How would it make the first premise spurious? Whatever begins to exist has a cause. That’s true across the board. You say everything that exists “is four forces and two particles…” Well, Derek, did they begin to exist? If so, then they have a cause. If not, then on what basis have you determined that they are uncaused?
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Because the things you said begin to exist don’t actually begin to exist. They’re merely abstracts from our point of view. From a particle’s point of view–and everything is made of particles–NONE of the things you list as beginning to exist actually DO begin to exist. They are only a different arrangement of existing particles. And since particles are everything, they are the only things that can be said to exist, so it’s only if THEY began to exist that matters.
Even IF the fundamental forces and particles began to exist (and I’m not saying they did), that doesn’t mean they were CAUSED. According to physics, “nothing” is inherently unstable and it will produce something. Something from nothing. Of course, it turns out “nothing” doesn’t really exist as we imagined it to be, and totally empty space is actually “something,” but that something could very well be uncaused and eternal.
If this interests you, I’d recommend viewing Lawrence Krauss’s “A Universe From Nothing”:
Krauss understands the physics far better than any of us.
LikeLike
June 26, 2012 at 12:07 am
Derek writes,
Again, this was addressed above. To argue that random particle formation from the QV is uncaused is an invalid logical inference and does not even begin to counter the causal principle. If you care to address the argument, I’m all ears.
And if it interests you, I’d recommend reading Steng operation and <a href="https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/nyt-reviews-lawrence-krauss-new-book-on-why-something-exists-rather-than-nothingand-it-isnt-pretty/"NYT reviews Lawrence Krauss’ new book on why something exists rather than nothing…and it isn’t pretty.
LikeLike
June 26, 2012 at 12:10 am
Well the second link doesn’t work. Let’s try it again:
NYT reviews Lawrence Krauss’ new book on why something exists rather than nothing…and it isn’t pretty.
LikeLike
June 26, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Since neither you nor I understand QM sufficiently to make this claim, your assertion does little to convince me. Since I have interviewed actual physicists well versed in QM who claim it’s possible for particle formation to be considered uncaused…I’m going to have to go with that. (And please don’t jump to the conclusion that I BELIEVE particles can be uncaused, only that it’s POSSIBLE.)
Well, if that link is any indication of the quality of the arguments against Something From Nothing (from a philosopher, no less, not even a physicist), then I’m hardly convinced. The writer doesn’t even appear to grasp that our previous concept of what “nothing” means is apparently wrong, and that there is no such thing as “true” nothingness. And his claim that “If the quantum vacuum is unstable, then it could not have existed from eternity past” indicates a lack of understanding of the concept of eternal instability. An eternal vacuum could eternally produce universes that take no energy (since the total energy of our universe appears to be zero), and thus never decay.
Can we be certain that is the actual scenario? Of course not. But compare that with throwing all physics out and concluding an all powerful, all knowing supernatural God based on flawed philosophical reasoning and no evidence. Occam’s Razor favors the naturalistic explanation.
Either that, or let’s argue that Zeus is the source of lightning bolts….
LikeLike
June 27, 2012 at 8:55 am
Interesting from somebody who keeps talking about what he admittedly doesn’t understand, but again, we have precedent for this.
Closing your eyes and insisting that you are going to believe x without engaging arguments against x cedes by default. If your position is that if one isn’t a physicist, one should shut up, then you should follow suit. If laypersons can legitimately discuss these issues, then you are obligated to deal with the arguments. The fact that you ignore them and scoff at trained philosophers (what are you??) demonstrates your inability to counter what they say.
Science tells us what it observes. It cannot tell us what doesn’t exist by what it doesn’t observe. That’s pretty easy to understand. To say it is “possible” that particle movement is uncaused, against the whole of our experience and without proof (as noted, something that cannot, in principle, ever be proved), is another example of grasping at logical possibility.
No, it is an attempt by atheists to have their cake and eat it too. Nothing means nothing. The laughable attempt to call something nothing can only make sense in the Twilight Zone; it is a direct contradiction. The universe didn’t spring from “nothing”—nothing ever could, as you obliquely admit. Since you acknowledge that there is no such thing as true nothingness, the causal principle is affirmed.
You are then left with ignorance (which appears to be your default position) or asserting that the vacuum is uncaused. However, as shown on the other thread, you’ve yet to engage Jason’s possible world rejoinder for the contingency of the vacuum. You say that what exists is “four basic forces and two basic particles” (BFBP). In the modern sense of necessary, a necessary being cannot not exist in any possible world, and since it is possible that the BFBP could be constituted differently in a possible world, then by definition, it cannot be necessary. That shows, of course, that since science cannot prove the eternality of anything, and since philosophically the BFBP cannot be necessary, your reply that is could be necessary is shown to be false. Consequently, material existence is contingent.
Back to BFBP. If you insist against the possible world rejoinder that the BFBP is basic in all possible worlds, then as stated several times, no assembly can assemble itself. Anything composite is logically posterior to its components. The eternality of this composite is thus contingent upon its components. The components are then either contingent or necessary. If the former, then no assembly of contingent beings can constitute a necessary being. If the parts are contingent, the whole is contingent. Atheists reflexively cry “fallacy of composition” when they hear this, but it is no such thing. If the parts are material, the whole is material. If the parts are jello, the whole is jello. The only remaining option, then, is to assert that the components are themselves necessary. If so, then the assembly is superfluous.
No potency can raise itself to act. A potential can only be raised to act by something in act, for something cannot come from nothing. Any complex of form/matter, act/potency, essence/existence is thus composed by another. Since material existence is contingent, it stands in need of a cause. Since the cause itself cannot be material, then by definition the cause is immaterial.
LikeLike
June 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm
I’ve presented the arguments physicists have made that, IF TRUE, refute the KCA. It’s a perfectly reasonable claim to make and it does NOT require me to be an expert in QM. Should I rebuke you if you refer to something an expert claimed in, say, medicine? Is there a reason you feel compelled to act like a dick?
If you have problems with the physics, take it up with the physicists. I’m sure they would be amused.
A philosopher arguing physics makes about as much sense as a philosopher arguing evolutionary theory or gravity. A philosopher may be well versed in QM, just as an English professor might, but when it comes to matters of physics I tend to trust the claims of physicists more than philosophers…especially when even I can see problems with the claims the philosophers make.
And it’s completely non-intuitive that a photon can behave like both a particle and a wave, yet it’s true according to QM. Cause and effect are observations from WITHIN our universe, but they may not be characteristics of the source of our universe. Time and space are ubiquitous and overwhelming characteristics of everything within our universe, yet they may be nonexistent phenomena “beyond” our universe. The point is, just because something goes against the “whole of our experience” doesn’t mean ANYTHING when we’re discussing something that is completely OUTSIDE the “whole of our experience.”
I find it rather amusing that you criticize the notion of naturalistic “uncaused” entities as being unprovable, while you apparently have no problem accepting the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient God, which is a supernatural “uncaused” entity. The supernatural, omnipotence and omniscience ALL go against the “whole of our experience,” yet I haven’t heard you complain about that. You demand evidence to the level of gravitational theory for the notion of “uncaused” particles, yet demand nothing of the sort for an “all being, master of time, space and dimension.” That’s called a special pleading fallacy.
I freely admit the notion of an uncaused, eternal universe lacks sufficient evidence, even if it may be a direct prediction of physical theory. But I’m not the one claiming it to be anything more than a hypothesis. The proponents of the KCA, OTOH, are loath to admit their conclusion of an all powerful, all knowing, supernatural God is nothing more than a hypothesis…and a less parsimonious one than anything physics has generated.
Evidently you can’t grasp it either. A photon behaving as both a wave and a particle is SEEMINGLY a direct contradiction as well. So is the fact that you turn a motorcycle wheel to the left when you want to turn right. What WE thought of as nothing apparently may not exist AT ALL, and to scoff at the notion and declare it a deception by physicists is just silly. Do you really think physicists just make crap up and declare it fact? Well, if so, it wouldn’t be the first time a theist did such a thing. My own degree is in evolutionary biology, and I can’t tell you how many times theists with a high school education have “proven” evolution couldn’t possibly be true, and claim that the 99.85% of life and earth scientists who accept evolution as true are hiding the facts in some desperate attempt to keep their jobs. 🙂
If absolute nothing doesn’t exist and never has, then I admit no such thing.
False. Material existence may or may not be contingent. We don’t know if the source of our universe is material or not, nor if that material is eternal and uncaused. We also have no evidence of ANYTHING immaterial being the source of anything, so we cannot even claim precedence for the cause of our universe being immaterial.
The reason KCA proponent claims fail and my don’t is because I’m not making any claims of certainty, merely pointing out viable naturalistic forces, supported by admittedly tentative math and physics, may indeed be the source of our universe. KCA proponents, OTOH, claim the KCA proves the existence of God. If they only claimed it’s one of numerous hypotheses (and admitted it’s not the most parsimonious one), they could have a point. But proof? The existence of more rational, naturalistic hypotheses belie that claim.
LikeLike
June 27, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Hey, Derek. These two-thread discussions seem to be merging, so I’m going to close it here and reply to Post 42 under the other thread.
LikeLike
June 28, 2012 at 4:23 pm
[…] didn’t begin to exist, therefore he doesn’t need a cause” is incorrect. Hell, even Christians point this out! It could easily be the case that God is necessarily contingent upon something, even though he […]
LikeLike
November 11, 2013 at 4:06 pm
[…] Kalam Cosmological Argument […]
LikeLike
July 6, 2019 at 3:06 pm
@Jayman
You write:
Your subsequent arguments indicate that you are a Thomist. If so, then you know this doesn’t work. If the universe began to exist, something immaterial created it but that doesn’t tell us how many somethings did so. Nor does it tell us whether the creator(s) is/are composite or simple. Thus the KCA is an insufficient argument for God’s existence. Even if Craig is correct that a mind is the only explanatory cause for the universe, we are still in the dark about what kind of mind that is. In my estimation, Thomas’ first two ways are far superior.
LikeLike