Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

[Spellbound]

Syne,

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

 

[Baldeee]

There is nothing to necessarily rule out the infinite regress of physical causes. But self-causation is not only even simpler and more probable, but necessary.

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

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

This is because reality does not even begin to become real until and unless it meets the preconditions for its existence, namely, "why must I exist?" Only then can potential become actualized.

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

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

 

[Spellbound]

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

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

This much is a tautology and ultimately of little value in the understanding of anything.

That is a misunderstanding and far from the truth.

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

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

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

 

[Beer w/Straw]

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

Could you try explaining this a bit better, please.

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

 

[Spellbound]

 

[PhysBang]

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

 

[Baldeee]

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

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

That is a misunderstanding and far from the truth.

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

I was merely adding to Syne's argument in favor of the existence of God using a tautology.

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

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

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

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

 

[Spellbound]

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

 

[Beer w/Straw]

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

 

[Yazata]

Bear in mind that the argument exampled was not intended as a version of the KCA or indeed of anything I might believe, but simply an example of an argument that leads validly to the conclusion of an infinite regress, as requested by Syne.

Noted.

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

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

p2: Soil is chocolate.

C: Causes regress infinitely into the past.

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

If A then B
A
Therefore B

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Baldeee]

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

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

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes. We'd conclude that the cosmos is caused by an uncaused causal agent different from God. So the argument would no longer be a proof that God exists, which is what it purports to be.

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

You're obviously not carefully following what I wrote, which was this:

Premise (1) talks about "Everything that begins to exist". I asked "Is there anything other than God that does not begin to exist?" If the answer to that question is "No", then premise 1 says "Everything other than God has a cause". Premise (2) just notes "The universe is not God". And (3) follows.
I've bolded the relevant condition that qualifies my statement that you quoted.

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

I'm dealing there only with the situation in which God is the only contemplated thing-that-does-not-
begin-to-exist.

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

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

You're right. It's a get out clause that you need in order to avoid the KCA collapsing on the grounds of begging the question. If you don't accept this "get out clause" and insist that God is the only thing that did not begin to exist, then the KCA begs the question and the argument fails.

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

But you have written nothing that refutes the objection to the KCA that I have raised.

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

You're right. It's a get out clause that you need in order to avoid the KCA collapsing on the grounds of begging the question. If you don't accept this "get out clause" and insist that God is the only thing that did not begin to exist, then the KCA begs the question and the argument fails.

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

This is not at all like the statement "there is no evidence for the existence of God". That might be a premise in a logical argument. Whether it is true or false is a question of the soundness of the premise. It does not go to the question of the validity of the argument, at least not in any obvious way that I can see.

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

You might do well to carefully review Yazata's various posts on the matter from earlier in the thread. He has raised substantial points that might work in your favour, if only you understood them.

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

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

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

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

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

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

It is clear that you don't understand the argument that I have put to you. Worse, you aren't trying to understand it. The only other possibility is that you're deliberately playing stupid in a desperate attempt to avoid facing up to the argument. But it would be uncharitable of me to assume that.

Unless and until you can come to grips with the argument that has been put to you, there's no point in trying to discuss this issue of validity with you any further. To progress in this discussion, I'll either need to see from you that you've understood the argument I have made, or some sign of willingness to learn to understand it. In the absence of either of those, I won't waste more time on you on this matter. But I don't want to see you ever claim that the KCA is logically valid, since you can give no justification for your belief other than your gut feeling and wishful thinking.

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

You didn't understand the point. You can't admit that there is something other than God that did not begin to exist and then turn around and call that other thing God. That would be retracting your previous agreement that there is something other than God that does not begin to exist.

It's important when you're dealing with logical argument to be logically consistent. Otherwise, you fail.

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

I'm not clear on what you're saying you don't know.

I'm dealing there only with the situation in which God is the only contemplated thing-that-does-not-begin-to-exist.

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

You didn't follow the argument. You're far too ready to jump in an claim that it is "a quibble" and now "laughable", but it is clear for all to see that you don't understand what you're trying to ridicule.

I asked whether there are things that do not begin to exist other than God. I dealt with both possible answers previously (in fact, for the first time, in the opening post of this thread): the "yes" answer, and the "no" answer. In the past few posts you have commented only only what I've said about the "yes" answer. You claim I have introduced a straw man by assuming the "yes" answer. But I haven't assumed that. I've merely stated what the logical implications of the "yes" answer are. I've also previously dealt with the implications of the "no" answer.

I have explained these points to you many times in this thread. So have Sarkus and Baldeee and Yazata. And yet you still haven't come to grips with the argument being put to you. Your attempts at picking it apart are pathetically piecemeal. You cast around left and right for what you perceive are holes in the argument, never realising that you're missing pieces. You introduce irrelevancies. You try to redefine the terms. You look like a drowning man clutching at straws. And yet, you think that you've got it all under control and you know what you're talking about.

A bit of humility wouldn't go astray, Jan. If you don't understand the arguments - and clearly you do not - try asking questions until you do. You're intelligent enough. This isn't beyond your capacity (at least I hope it isn't).

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

I'm not introducing anything. I'm making the point that God is already right there, built into the premises, but in a hidden way. I've been pointing this out and explaining it to you for 350 posts now, but you still don't get it.

What's really amusing is that you have to change the premises, to actually beg the question, then claim that the actual premise begs the question, based on the ideas you implement, while the actual premises does no such thing.

I haven't changed the premises at all.

My re-writing the premises merely expresses what is already there, under conditions that I have clearly and carefully explained.

My argument is right there in the opening post. Much of what I have posted since then has been a pedagogical exercise in putting things in terms simple enough for you to follow the argument. I have re-expressed the premises of the KCA under conditions that I have clearly set down, so as to make their meaning transparently clear to you (and to other readers). Wherever I have done that, I have justified each step of my reasoning.

You have never posted a substantive response to the actual argument I have made.

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

Nothing has been forced into the argument. I have only explained what the KCA argument actually claims. I've unpacked it for you (and other readers). That is all.

If you believe I have introduced something new, you should be able to point to what I have inserted into the argument. You should also be able to point out why such insertion is unjustifiable. And you should be able to pick apart my posts line-by-line to show exactly where I have made my dishonest or mistaken step in reasoning.

But you can't and haven't done that.

We both know, I don't need a get out clause, because the argument is sound, and valid.

We haven't even got to discussing soundness yet. We're stuck on validity.

In this case you create new premises which beg the question, then claim (in light of the new deception) that the premise begs the question.

Reproduce any of my explanations (you might like to try the opening post, for example) line-by-line and point out exactly where I introduced a new premise. If you can. Make sure you address each point I made. Don't leave out parts and try a piecemeal analysis, because that's been a common mistake you've made so far. You can't just ignore important qualifications I've made, or important conditions I have specified in going from one step in reasoning to the next.

Or when backed into a corner (your position), you retort ''there is no evidence of God, which is why I don't believe God exists''). Both excuses are filled with no substance, whatsoever. They're simply made up.

I've never been backed into a corner by you. And certainly not in this thread.

In this thread I have been very careful not to discuss any evidence for or against God. That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the Kalam Cosmological Argument. And so far it is only about the validity or otherwise of the argument. When (if) we get to discussing the soundness of the premises, then we'll probably need to discuss evidence for or against certain aspects of the premises.

Listen up, because this is important: the KCA is claimed to be a logical demonstration that God exists. That is, the KCA not an argument that says "Well, from this and that bit of evidence, it looks likely that God exists." It is saying "This chain of logical reasoning proves beyond doubt that God must exist."

I don't need Yazata's point to look for credibility. The KCA is credible enough, once your honest.

Superficially, it seems credible. The point of the opening post, and what has followed, is that appearances can be deceiving. The KCA as presented by Craig needs quite a bit of unpacking. The devil is in the detail.

It has raised doubts for centuries, only to slap them upside the head. This one that Barker raises, is probably the daftest of the bunch.

You have to show you understand the argument before you are in a position to condescend to calling it daft.

And this you have singularly failed to do.

 

[Syne]

@ Baldeee

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

P1: All physical things require a cause.​

Your first premise asserts two things.

1. Physical things exist
2. Causation exists​

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

P2. Only the physical exists.​

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

C1. Infinite regress of physical causation.
​

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


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

First, a causal loop is a type of infinite regress, so is covered under the term.

So why did you feel you needed to exclude it?

(with the addendum of a premise that rules out self-causation)

 

[Baldeee]

I've already said your argument was logically valid.

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

I'm not sure why you complain so much about that validity being due to tautology. Tautologies are logically valid. Begging the question is an informal fallacy that has no effect on the logical validity.

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

With all of your claims of expertise on (and only wanting to evaluate for) validity, you'd think you'd know that.

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

P1: All physical things require a cause.​

Your first premise asserts two things.

1. Physical things exist
2. Causation exists​

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

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

P2. Only the physical exists.​

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

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

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

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

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

So why did you feel you needed to exclude it?

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

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

 

[Sarkus]

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

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

Ultimately your choice, though.

 

[James R]

One thing's for sure. This thread has really exposed some holes in the ability of a couple of our prominent resident theists to reason things out.

Possibly when you're a theist you have to be tolerant to a fair amount of logical contradiction and senselessness, so a deficiency of this kind could be evolutionarily advantageous to the theist (or, probably more accurately, to the theism meme).

 

[PhysBang]

P1: All physical things require a cause.

Your first premise asserts two things.

1. Physical things exist
2. Causation exists​

That is ridiculous.

Try this one:

T1: All unicorns require a horn.

That premise does not asserts these two things:

1. Unicorns exist
2. Horns exist
​

From these two alone, we can infer that, unless stated otherwise, causes are physical.

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

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

Barring any other premises, we must assume these causes an infinite regress, because no other options are available within the given premise.

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

Why do people insist on trying to sneak in propositions?

We are not allowed to make assumptions unstated in the premises if we are strictly evaluating for validity.

Did you just write that?

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

 

[Spellbound]

One thing's for sure. This thread has really exposed some holes in the ability of a couple of our prominent resident theists to reason things out.

Says who? Provide your evidence.

Possibly when you're a theist you have to be tolerant to a fair amount of logical contradiction and senselessness, so a deficiency of this kind could be evolutionarily advantageous to the theist (or, probably more accurately, to the theism meme).

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