I "Kalam" Like I See 'Em...

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, right? Wrong.


The Kalam Argument for God:
P1. Anything which begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C. The Universe has a cause.


The Kalam Argument AGAINST God:
P1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing.
P2: Given (1), Anything which begins to exist was not caused to do so by something which exists.
P3: The universe began to exist.
P4: Given (2) and (3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.
P5: God caused the universe to begin to exist.
C1: Given (4) and (5), God does not exist.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Kalam
• Argument
• God
• atheist
• atheism
• Jesus
• Christ
• Christianity
• theism
• Cosmological

[Sickopath333]

@d007ization I am not misunderstanding his argument. You are trying to give it far more credence then it deserves. I gave you an exact quote of his that absolutely defends my interpretation and criticism of what he is trying to argue for. Either the universe began to exist, or it didn't. It is either infinite/eternal or it had a cause (and you can stipulate the Big Bang, but you are still stuck explaining either an infinite regression or an ultimate cause).

[d007ization]

@Sickopath333 Before I say anything else:

He correctly states that the Big Bang is the cause of the universe (as we know it). Anything else, such as why it happened or if it was the ultimate beginning is extrapulation.

And you're completely misunderstanding his argument: it centers around the fact that "causal relationships only exist between things that already exist"

[Sickopath333]

@bizzyb1999 No, he really is. That's what his whole spiel about atoms rearranging is trying to explain; things appear to have a beginning existence (you were born and began existing X years ago), but what you are composed of already existed in the form of atoms.

I don't think it's incoherent. If something was generated from nothing, that thing would be the effect. Whatever created that thing would be the cause. That thing began to exist when it was made.

[Sickopath333]

@d007ization He is doubling back on himself. He either refutes the idea that the universe began to exist, which is his big counter-point against KCA (since things do not in fact begin to exist, they merely have the appearance of doing so; in the small scale, all the atoms already existed to begin with) and sacrifices his own argument, P3, or he preserves his argument and loses his criticism of KCA. If this makes sense, this is why I say his argument fails. Anything unclear?

[bizzyb1999]

@Sickopath333 He isn't saying that 'nothing begins existing' (I don't think). He's mainly attacking the concept of 'causing something that does not exist to begin existing', since there isn't anything to affect so that it can become an effect, the idea of 'affecting' or 'causing' something which does not exist to begin existing is incoherent.

[d007ization]

@Sickopath333 What I and he is saying is that the beginning of the universe is an

unknown event which may well defy the laws of nature but there's no definite way of knowing that.

[Sickopath333]

@d007ization So he says that nothing begins to exist in his video, as a main counter-argument to the KCA (which presupposes that things do in fact begin to exist), yet you are saying, well he doesn't flat out deny the possibility... he either affirms it happens (as P2 and P3 of his argument says) or rejects it as a criticism of KCA.

And I pretty much addressed that already when I listed the problems you have when proposing any ultimate cause for existence (creation ex nihilo).

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@EnlightenedReader

"I only mentioned those philosophers because I have respect for them and none for internet atheists."

Which adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, and is nothing but an attempt at poisoning the well.

"And yet you wonder why you're blocked."

I know very well why I am blocked, and I stated those reasons already.

[EnlightenedReader]

@MomoTheBellyDancer I only mentioned those philosophers because I have respect for them and none for internet atheists. You really can't fucking read, can ya?

And yet you wonder why you're blocked.