Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument fail?

[unprofessionalvids]

sorry but it's hard to take a game character seriously

this video is just fail

[JohananRaatz]

Dear atheists:

1.) The wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing. (true by definition)

2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Penrose's Orch-OR model)

Therefore the wave-function of the universe is a mind: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8

[hejcoze]

Strange how you quote scientists talking about nothing, yet fail to point out that none of them propose the idea of Creator, let alone God.

[thetraceur123]

@hejcoze That's because they can't study what happened before the Big Bang, both premises of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument is true and that leads inescapely that there was a cause for the Big Bang and the Universe, because Big Bang created both Time and Space ( And matter ) around 13,7 billionyears ago the cause of the big bang can't exist within the Spacetime existance or be made of matter, that leads to an unembodied eternal mid which created the universe. That is what we define as God.

[thetraceur123]

@hejcoze If the premises are true, the conclusion is true in this deductive argument. The argument gives a good argument for the existance of a higher being which created the Universe, but we can't study it scientificly and therefore we can't just start talking about it scientificly. But the argument is a sound argument, and if the argument and it's premises is true, the Universe had a cause ( Higher being eg God ). Though we can't study it it, but doesn't mean it isn't true.

[Gnomefro]

@thetraceur123 "and if the argument and it's premises is true, the Universe had a cause ( Higher being eg God ). Though we can't study it it, but doesn't mean it isn't true."

If the "universe" had a cause in the sense you're talking about, it could still be a natural process that nobody in their right mind would call "God" or even a "being". What Kalam demonstrates is just that causality is not a universal phenomenon.

[Gnomefro]

@thetraceur123 A real issue with Kalam, especially in versions that take the big bang theory for granted, is that there is a massive confusion around the terms "universe" and "nature". I could create a simulated universe on my PC that had inhabitants that discussed their versions of Kalam and conclude that their universes had a creator, and they would be right, it would be me. But I'm natural, even though I transcend their universe.

[Gnomefro]

@thetraceur123 However, naturalistic responses have long since dealt with teleological arguments, through the theory of evolution, the weak anthropic principle and our demonstrable utter ignorance of the number of trials involved in the creation of this universe, so we don't need a mind, intelligence or any kind of top down "explanation". In fact, this would seem to defy the very idea of an explanation. What remains would be a transcendent natural cause.

[Gnomefro]

@thetraceur123 This really is all Kalam can support. Any speculation about minds, intelligence etc are unsupported claims that are made up by people who want to argue for certain bronze age myths. As far as I'm concerned, appealing to intelligence, the most impressive example of material phenomena that we know of, as an elemental attribute of nature that doesn't need explanation is putting the cart before the horse and not an explanation at all. No matter how comforting it may sound to some.

[thetraceur123]

@hejcoze You can't for example prove scientificly that there is an external world but we all still believes it ( Or atleast almost everyone :) ) but, you could use sound arguments for the existance of the external world and thus make a conclusion that the external world exists.

[theonlyway2truth]

btw, I don't even accept the Kalam Anymore. If you are interested in my reasoning, send me a message.

[sirdelrio]

@theonlyway2truth i have never accepted it either, but send me your reasoning to personal message. And please, stop with the 'absolutely nothing'. Quoting Hawking is not enough. If you were familiar with cosmology from a knowledge of the physics, the experimental evidence and the models, you wouldnt say that.

[sirdelrio]

@theonlyway2truth When physicists say that "space-time, matter and energy came into existence" they are speculating. There is no experimental evidence for this. The experimental evidence goes back up to 300.000y from the bigbang, before that, all we have are mathematical models. Some of them come out right in predicting the future events, but none of them says ANYTHING about the beginning (is not like they predict 'an absolute beginning', no), like evolution says nothing of abiogenesis.

[sirdelrio]

@theonlyway2truth also, all the theorems that theists claim 'predict' an absolute beginning, what they actually predict is a singularity, and the singularity is not nothing. Also in physics, a singularity is "a phenomenon that cannot be described by available theory". There are singularities of various kinds: cosmological singularities, black hole singularities, et al. because current theory cannot describe what happens there. Cutting edge theoretical approaches are 'solving' the singularity.

[fivethirty]

@theonlyway2truth YES PLEASE SHARE BECAUSE I DISAGREE!

[martiangrundy]

This is merely disingenuous apologetics.

Why not at least be honest about things. This is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with christianity or islam etc. Or why you believe-in what you do and have FAITH (believing in something without evidence).

For arguments sake, let's grant the Kalam as being sound. How does that get one too your particular flavour of deity. As opposed to a different flavour of deistic or theistic deity, or indeed another (likely) natural cause or phenomenon altogether.

[Roper122]

" That is why the argument against the kalam which says that virtual particles and other sub atomic particles are counter examples to the first premise are all false accusations "

No.. actually that doesn't follow at all.

As for Stephen Hawking...hmmmm why not quote everything Hawking has to say?

[drcraigvideos]

Great stuff! Make more!

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

I really hate these dumb talking puppets. What do they use for these anyway?

[cartoonhead5]

The universe did not begin to exist becuse time did not exist before the universe. So the universe has always existed thus the arugment fails.

[theonlyway2truth]

@cartoonhead5

e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

[cartoonhead5]

@theonlyway2truth Sorry but what all the letters stand for.

[BillKiernan]

@theonlyway2truth you're leaving out the fact that the singularity IS the universe, is space/time. the universe in the form we know it, is the result of the expansion of the singularity. to say "nothing" existed before it is semantics. kalam fails, matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed.

[PanDeism]

The theological theory of pandeism fully accounts for this....

[theonlyway2truth]

@PanDeism This is relevant how? This is an argument against naturalism and for a supernatural intelligence. It is not specifically for any particular religion or God concept.

[PanDeism]

@theonlyway2truth Naetheless, if we ought to be accoutred with logic in contemplating the existence of a Creator, the same must apply to our contemplation of the nature of such Creator, and the most fundamental model of a Creator which fully accounts for all evidence must be deemed as correct until proof is presented which can not be thereby explained -- pandeism is that fundamental model....

[theonlyway2truth]

@PanDeism

Honestly, this debate doesn't matter. The KCA is an argument against atheism. In so far as it demonstrates that there is a transcendent mind who created the universe, I'm happy. This argument is only one part of a larger case for christianity.

[PanDeism]

@theonlyway2truth No, really its not; it is a rational argument, and so is against Christianity and for a rational model, such as deism or pandeism (notwithstanding that the argument itself was coined by Muslims, and so that name, Kalām).... This argument simply favors a precedent mind, not a "transcendent" mind.... but even so, were Christianity to claim to be premised on logic arguments, nonprobabalistic faith would prove unnecessary, and could be thrown out the religion altogether....

[HailCthulhu]

Apologies for forgetting to set automatic approval. Will review later.