I’m not sure how many times I have to point out that whether an event being determined or indeterministic is irrelevant. To falsify the inference to the spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncreated Creator would be to undermine one of the two premises” You can’t dictate whether causality will hold or not. It would be like if someone argued “God made everything. The event then occurs in an indeterminate manner, but without the hyperspace, no event could occur. You’ve said “you cannot claim it is a mind or an abstract object because it has not been established these things actually exist.” How is that not begging the question against an argument FOR an unembodied mind? The cause of the universe must be a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, supernatural, uncaused, personal Creator. The term I used (i.e., observation) is clearly a simplification. That’s why I’m a proponent of “The FreeThinking Argument Against Naturalism” —> https://freethinkingministries.com/the-freethinking-argument-in-a-nutshell/ . What you posit are just abstract ideas and thus all we’re left with is a Minkowski type of space-time. He is assuming an infinite regress of events (moment -3 preceded moment -2, moment -2 preceded moment -1 and so on). It makes no difference whatsoever. The first is that something cannot come from nothing. It’s not like God where it can simply will time to begin. \\“Furthermore, there is no “when” to choose between one option or another in a timeless state — the _uncaused_ choice (and thus trigger) only occurs at the first moment.”\\ — Right. Skip to main content. Blah blah blah. It’s not necessarily a “space”. Therefore, even in this case, one has to be suspicious of their claims due to a *strong* bias. . You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence. Finally, I fail to see how I’m committing a straw man in response to your objection to the cause’s being immaterial. . If you asked “Well, what caused you to do X?” you’re begging the question against LFW. I think it’s good that we at least drop the debate over whether your model is ad-hoc. And hence, the proponents of this argument almost always employ additional arguments to reach their conclusions including the likes of Craig”. This follows because we have no reason to believe Substance-Dualism or Platonism is true. How does it operate? #1 is not a known fact, but a supposition. And let me remind you that, just like God, the temporal hyperspace (the cause) can exist forever and just give rise to the spontaneous effect at a later moment in time. We mean all matter, energy, space, and time that ever was, is, or will be in both steps 2 and 3. The ultimate point is this: Craig (and you) failed to demonstrate the difference between a free timeless agent and a mechanistic timeless entity. And I explained why your response was a lousy response, didn’t I? You’re assuming I’m just making that up without any reason at all. Should we throw out everything he says? EX NIHIL NIHIL FIT It has been re-worked several times to reach its present, most widely recognized form--i.e. But then you presented an argument against the possibility of something coming from nothing and the argument from Personal Causation. In fact, I was reading an article some days ago where the philosopher Robin Le Poidevin argued there is “proof that causes are never — arguably, could never be — simultaneous with their effects, based upon a principle widely accepted”. Because I think theistic apologetics is obviously just a flawed rationalization for something that is not supported by the evidence and is believed because of non-intellectual reasons. 3. So, yes, this is a straw man. The most popular proponent of this argument is William Lane Craig. So, yes, the decision and act only occurred when time was already existent. In fact, it simply begs the question. “How can nothingness have *properties* such as potential?” . Cosmological arguement debunked. I wasn’t intending to be uncharitable. But this is exactly what Craig denied. So, this time can be eternal. So even if The Big Bang that occurred 14 billion years ago wasn’t the absolute beginning of all physical reality, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t an absolute beginning somewhere back in the chain of events. For example, if the natural world existed forever, then it would need to posit an outside cause. \\”So, I reject the Platonist and Substance-Dualist views that abstract objects and minds are immaterial.”\\ Ok, so what? You stated there are three arguments that demonstrate the truth of the Causality Principle — as a metaphysical principle rather than a rule derived empirically from physical reality. . I recommend you take a look at these other articles in which I show that even if, for example, The Big Bang were just a bubble in a much wider mother universe, that only pushes an absolute beginning back. As Aristotle humorously put it, “Nothing is what rocks dream about.” To say “nothing is there” is a statement that there isn’t anything there, just as saying “No one is at the door” doesn’t mean that there is a person at the door who is identified as “No one”. . As far as we know, physical laws depend on the structure of the universe they govern, therefore, causal laws are not even likely to exist in the absence of a governing structure. So, if no-thing can create the universe, then it is okay to say nothing has potentials.”\\\ — How? It's getting old for me. “such that it avoids the scientific and philosophical problems” It is clear that they’re extremely biased just like Craig. . “Does The Multi-Verse Explain Away The Need For A Creator?”, “Is The Universe A Computer Simulation?”, “Eternal Universe Models – Going For The Philosophical Jugular”, https://www.noblindfaith.com/pdf/sermon/TheSingularityWhoisAgentX.pdf, “Question Of The Week: 232: The Metric Of Time”, https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2017/in-what-sense-is-it-impossible-for-the-universe-to-come-from-nothing, “Q&A: Objections To Libertarian Free Will”, Q&A: Follow Up On Objections To Libertarian Free Will”, https://freethinkingministries.com/the-freethinking-argument-in-a-nutshell/, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/misunderstandings-about-god-and-the-big-bang/, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ICdwFbLCrav9rtoORpeWOlVofM87aBpT/view?usp=sharing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1MBI5z0MMY, Q&A: The Kalam Cosmological Argument and Eternalism. But that’s not true of the hyperspace hypothesis: the reason to accept it is the cause of our universe is supported by the evidence (which I presented above). So the fact that your claim isn’t a deductive argument couldn’t be any more irrelevant. And let me just make a preemptive strike here: don’t point to “the quantum vacuum”. This thread is archived. Any act of doing anything would pull him into time. If I were to put the argument in the form of a syllogism, it would look like this: There are three arguments for the personhood of the universe’s cause that I give in my other articles (and in my book) for why the cause must be a personal agent. He seems to think that merely having to bolster the conclusion “the universe had a cause” with additional arguments is an invalid move. You've gone through and rewritten it for calvindude clear enough that a drooling retard could understand it. It is not like some power was invested on it. Rewind the clock farther still, and the transcendent hyperspace realm shrinks down to nothing, meaning it began to exist and needs a transcendent cause. God didn’t use previously existing material to manufacture the universe. The second is that every effect has an efficient cause? “If they were eternally present, then how is the effect (i.e the universe) not just as eternal as the cause (the hyperspace)?” Imagine if were having a debate “Is Pluto Inhabited?”. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. 😉 But then you presented an argument against the possibility of something coming from nothing and the argument from Personal Causation. Or in another words, it wouldn’t prove that first cause existed, which for a first cause argument is pretty damn ridiculous. Just because our Minkowski space-time began to exist at the Big Bang, doesn’t entail a temporal hyperspace could not have existed eternally. Rationality Rules says that in the second premise, what we mean by the term “Universe” is the scientific definition of universe (i.e all matter, energy, space, and time), whereas in the conclusion, we employ the colloquial usage of the term “Universe”, meaning literally everything that ever was, is, and ever will be. Any time you find a theist trying to argue the existence of God from a logical point of view, chances are extremely high that you can win by showing that their argument is either circular or requires supposition of the first premise and is therefore invalid. The major issue here is that you’re treating abstract ideas as concrete entities which is extremely misleading. It was an argument that a cause cannot be eternally present and the effect not be just as eternal as the cause…unless the cause is an agent with free will who can decide to bring about a new effect He hadn’t done before. I typed very quickly and English is not my mother language. Cosmological Arugument debunked - Khuda pehli cause hai ya nai? Objection 2: It Doesn’t Prove The Universe’s Cause Was The First Cause. . “It’s not like life as you know it. Therefore, it is clear that the Kalam is dependent on the truth of substance dualism. The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity, “Does The Multi-Verse Explain Away The Need For A Creator?”, “Is The Big Bang The Origin Of The Universe?”, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/short-videos/deconstructing-new-atheist-objections-to-the-arguments-for-god/. Don’t buy what he’s selling. Oh, sorry. . In his book “Who Is Agent X? Thus, you haven’t avoided an absolute beginning. . Here is my own refutation of Kalam :http://www.strongatheism.net/library/counter_apologetics/craigs_unsupported_premise/. If so, how does your… idea fare under the weight of this criticism?” Rationality Rules indicts The Kalam Cosmological Argument for committing the fallacy of equivocation. Occam's Razor says the simplest explantion is the correct one. . – I usually just use the abductive argument between abstract objects and unembodied minds because it’s quicker to verbally flesh out. Moreover, Undifferentiated time is just sequence or indices, unlike the metric time that does move or change in equal intervals. If not, then please tell me how you reconcile God’s will not being determined and being controlled (and thus caused) at the same time. Instead of God you can posit a yniverse! There must have been a time when no physical things existed. If so, how does your sci-fi hyperspace-that-runs-according-to-laws-of-physics-no-one-has-ever-experienced-nor-can-they-describe-including-non-Minkowski-space idea fare under the weight of this criticism? report. "I could claim that it's the writer's fault. Moreover, saying God willed to interrupt the state at the first moment is like saying I’ve chosen to wake up after or during the time I was already awake — that’s logically impossible; I simply wake up without choosing it. . But then this is just personal incredulity since there is no reason to believe it is irrational. Rationality Rules 107,653 views. How does spontaneity make any significant difference? But my goal here is to show that even if I concede all of that is wrong.”\\\ — Whoa! EX NIHIL NIHIL FIT So, any example I present can be countered with a “it must be wrong because it is metaphysically impossible.” Besides that, I think people like C.S Lewis, Lee Strobel, Francis Collins, Hugh Ross, Frank Morrison, Nabeel Qureshi, and J. Warner Wallace would beg to differ. . Am I wrong?Then how does this affect what you believe about the Kalam? . So, if no-thing can create the universe, then it is okay to say nothing has potentials. If the argument applies to both, then we would be forced to admit that both views are incoherent; we would be left with a nice paradox since none of the alternatives are coherent (I can live with that). You’re still not grasping the terminology. . It would only be relevant if I were accusing you of a formal fallacy, like affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent. In the example of the chair, the final cause would be the purpose of sitting. . ­”Non-metric time is not the same as a non-classical hyperspace.”. And his arguments are very convincing. I have, over the years, been a keen objector to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, an argument that apologists like William Lane Craig use to posit the existence of a creator god for the universe. My argument at the end of my previous response was not an argument for the truth of the law of causation. I get the feeling you just want to avoid concluding the existence of God and are willing to latch onto any idea that has even a remote chance of helping you do that. But here is the catch: it is not. Indeed, science and logic force you to a beginning. I don’t know about you, but I prefer to trust people who began to believe something is true because of rational reasons and not because of “emotional routes…” The latter makes more probable that the supposed evidence is actually just a rationalization of a pre-existent belief, and therefore, we should be very skeptical of it. That’s not just my view; many psychologists are discovering now that humans are naturally wired (or predisposed) to believe in certain things (which includes religion). Why? . Cosmology and impossibility of infinite regress only show the universe began to exist, not that there’s a universe above our universe, unless of course, you beg the question against theism. For example, the possibility of a tree spontaneously becoming a chair does not violate the “from nothing, nothing comes” principle, and yet, it violates the causal principle. I might be. It is not like God could have timelessly chosen not to create the universe. I would say, based on my experience, that most atheists would be perfectly comfortable with this conclusion. Sure, you can claim that’s the case as much as you want, but this proves nothing since I’ve already refuted your attempts. There are good reasons given as to why the cause of the universe must be uncaused. This meta-universe is so utterly unlike anything we experience that it just can’t be criticized via any principles of science and philosophy we know of (well….save for one thing). Why? . One such argument is the kalam cosmological argument. “the very act of His decision to create time, He brought time into being.” ian,Welcome to Debunking Christianity. 113, 152), Third edition 2008. \\”Now, I’ll say for the last time: I’m did not say something came from nothing with no efficient and material causes, okay?”\\ — I am fully aware that this is not what you’re proposing. However, it has not been established this is the nature of the hyperspace. OUT OF nothing means it had no material cause. It would mean that if the cause is eternal, so too must the effect be eternal. Metric time? Yes. Would you say Minkowski space is abstract? But obviously, here we are. And maybe they don’t need water to even evolve. That's exactly what you are doing. . If this is the same type of contradiction as you seem to indicate, then how can your God act in time?In essence, Calvin, you too presuppose a yniverse. But if you posit that the cause exists in non-metric time, then you’re forced into another corner. and (B) we give arguments for that. EX NIHIL NIHIL FIT So, I’m confused here. Why? It starts out "I get it. I didn’t claim that’s the case. You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. The overused “God Of The Gaps” objection. Your argument here is no more logical than the Creationist saying: "Everything in our entire experience has a cause." . . . The same applies to abstract objects, by the way. To say “the universe came OUT OF nothing” is to say it had no material cause, regardless of whether it also had an efficient cause or not. Further, even infinite regress would not help since all the infinite causes would either exist simultaneously at the first moment or would be frozen in the state of atemporality. So, please, answer my question: is God’s decision to act caused by something else? First there is time, and then he chooses that time will exist? This is just a pitiful objection to The Kalam Cosmological Argument. That seems to be the only possible solution to the problem. . 100% Upvoted. . We can remove the “decision” (or will) part and simply add that there is an exertion of causal power simultaneously with the first moment and the creation of the universe. I’m not seeing the logic in it. . Variations on the Cosmological Argument: The Kalam Cosmological Argument. The problem remains. Again referring you to William Lane Craig’s nice short article explaining the sense in which something cannot come from nothing. save. You yourself go on to admit “This is hypothetical.” . Archived. BOOK REVIEW: “Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism” by Tim Stratton, BOOK REVIEW: “The Resurrection Of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach” by Michael Licona, A Look At Kirk MacGregor’s Argument For Middle Knowledge. The other option is that whenever the top stops spinning, a Universe is spawned. Pluto is barren.” I take affirmative “Yes. I’m not sure most scientists would be willing to simply concede free will exists just to accept your argument, and this would contradict what you stated before: “my proposal is not an alternative cosmological model. The first is that something cannot come from nothing. It didn’t occur AFTER the timeless state. And since no creator could ever come into being, the specific creator that brought our universe into existence couldn’t have come into being. 8:46. Wait a minute! This suggests that there wasn’t an infinite regression of creators begetting creators. The pluto example is not disanalogous at all. . How can nothingness have properties such as potential? Does he have an agenda? It’s true that many come to believe Christianity is true through experiential or emotional routes before ever even being exposed to the evidence that undergirds there worldview, but that does not render the arguments for Christianity unsound. So, I see no reason to say it is supernatural — in the sense proposed by theists (i.e., like a floating mind). Please don't take my non-response personally. You never interacted with any of his points. What I said was “I can’t imagine anyone embracing your weird hyperspace… on purely rational, scientific, evidential grounds.” I am well aware of all sorts of proposals by atheists to get out of theistic conclusions to the arguments I and other apologists present. The claim that something physical existed prior to Minkowski spacetime is perfectly compatible with the arguments against an infinite past and modern cosmology — further, it doesn’t require any scientific past-eternal model to be true, since it is a metaphysical question and not a scientific one. There are a handful of famous arguments for the existence of a god. There is nothing determining it must — unlike the car or the particles or the clothes dryer — eventually explode at some point. There are great arguments for libertarian free will, some of them are biblical and I use those against The Calvinists, but we have arguments that don’t presuppose the truth of scripture as well, for example The FreeThinking Argument that Dr. Tim Stratton formulated and which I linked to in an earlier comment. . The point is the following: to infer what caused the universe, proponents use something they’re familiar with (mind) rather than saying “There is no reason to think the cause is a mind: there is an infinite number of logical possibilities that could account for that”. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. . I’m denying there are actual things; only potential things (which are obviously not actual). For the Kalam to work you have to know what time is and effectively argue for it.Craig has used up a lot of ink debating the nature of time. That change can only be a non-mechanistic agent that has volition or free will (i.e. What Is The Divine Council And Is It Biblical? I agree with you that these comments are becoming very lengthy, so I’ll only discuss the more crucial point about the cause being a free agent or not. 1. Given that hyperspace is just a realm of abstract mathematics, and not a real concrete entity, and given that undifferentiated time is just sequence or indices (like the letters of the alphabet; A, B, C, D, E), your view doesn’t avoid the problems the traditional Mother Universe is plagued with. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Based on the Beginning of the Universe Here’s a different version of the cosmological argument, which I have called the kalam cosmological argument in honor of its medieval Muslim proponents (kalam is the Arabic word for theology): 1. Supernatural – It depends on how one defines “supernatural”. I remember one mathematician (whose name escapes me) humorously saying that if a clothes dryer ran for eternity, eventually it would fold your clothes for you. Given that everything that has a beginning has something that caused it to come into being, and since Big Bang cosmology, the second law of thermodynamics, and the two arguments against actual infinites establish that the universe came into being out of nothing a finite time ago, it follows that a cause transcendent to matter, energy, space, and time must have caused matter, energy, space, and time (i.e the universe) to come into existence. You must be kidding, right? Possibilities come cheap. Does the top have a free will? How do these arguments support the Causality Principle? If it is determined, then I can say the causal power of the hyperspace was also determined. But I’ll only call attention to some points. I’m positing a Minkowski-like space but that is not QUITE like Minkowski space since its time is different and it obeys (some) different laws of physics.”\ — This sounds like a universe begetting universe that behaves according to different laws of physics than what we know of; different space, different time, different everything, such that it avoids the scientific and philosophical problems the traditional mother universe is plagued by. “The hyperspace is in the realm of abstract mathematics. To look at the evidence, see my blog posts “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” and “Is The Big Bang The Origin Of The Universe?”. Why should I believe that Robin’s argument against causal simultaneity has equally strong non-rational (and thus emotional) motivations as Craig’s? This contingent being has a cause of its existence. . Infinite. In fact, philosophers will often talk about how one perceives the direction of causal influence between A and B when A and B are simultaneous. . Perhaps RR is assuming The Mother Universe theory whereby The Big Bang was not the absolute origin of all material objects, but only the birth of one of many “baby” universes” that come into being inside of a much wider Mother Universe. It doesn’t establish this meta-universe with a weird unknown version of space unless, again, you beg the question against theism. . The universe either had a beginning or it did not. “If The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound then at least one thing is immaterial; the cause of the universe! \\”I don’t know what are the other arguments for the cause being personal.”\\ — I find this to be an astonishing claim given that I gave one in the blog post this comment section is in. For one thing, why isn’t “all matter, energy, space, and time) not synonymous with “everything that ever was, is, or will be”? In other words, to affirm the statement "The universe is uncaused", you must deny at least one of The Kalam Cosmological Argument 's premises. . Are you saying that something can come into being OUT OF nothing and not violate the law of causality? . You still have the decision and creation of time existing only when time exists. Plus, the language I used to refer to the absence of all actual things (i.e., “it”) is just for practical purposes. Oops. Now, perhaps what you meant is that only actual things can actualize potentials — no potential can actualize itself. “But you seem to have been expressing skepticism that the principle must always be true.” The decision to create only exists at the first moment of time; it doesn’t happen at the state of timelessness. He’s the cause of His own decision to create the universe rather than not just as I am the cause of my own choice to where my Ash Ketchum cap today instead of my usual fedora. Or if premise 1 were false, one could say “Well, it came into being from nothing.” So to falsify the inference to a Creator is to falsify the syllogism. For God to come into being, His creator must have come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the creator before him had to come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the creator before him had to come into being, and so on back into infinity. It’s that we have no observed examples of things coming into being without an efficient cause. You: “It is not like God could have timelessly chosen not to create the universe.”— The conceptual analysis part of the argument is being totally ignored by RR. and there’s abundant scientific and philosophical evidence to support the premise. As I said in my previous comment, they have a bias. It’s a metaphysical explanation for the science that both theistic and *non-theistic scientists* embrace.” However, another possibility is that the universe had no cause at all — it came spontaneously into existence. Craig is biased. You presented no argument against this possibility. Now, I am NOT trying to shift the burden of proof here. Objection 3: It Commits The Fallacy Of Equivocation. I forgot to use the dots between the lines. I get the impression here that you do not believe time can be defined. God’s will should also be frozen in this state and could not interrupt itself. It is certainly not Minkowski spacetime or ordinary matter. In that case, the origin of our universe would indeed not be “everything that ever was, is, or will be”. To which I simply respond: so what? And in his “Time and Eternity”, he admits this undifferentiated time is perfectly compatible with his arguments against an infinite past. the Kalam Cosmological Argument. . 2. Undifferentiated time doesn’t need to be sequenced. So, maybe you should read again to fully understand my point. Why? In fact, to the contrary, everything we know about cause and effect overwhelmingly and unanimously tells us that when a new thing is created it is due to the rearrangement of energy and matter that already existed… that is, everything is the result of Creatio Ex Materia (creation out of material).”. Maybe they’re not made of carbon or sillicon, but some element we’ve never even discovered yet. So, we could still ask about the trigger of the Will; if there is no trigger, the timeless state along with God’s Will would remain in that state uninterrupted. Uncaused – Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. "A comparison of my "yniverse" and your "god" doesn't land in your favor. . The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.It is named after the kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which its key ideas originated.It was popularized in the western world by William Lane Craig in his book, The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979).. And abstract mathematics doesn’t need to be physical. \\”You’re proposing God made a choice (leaving the timeless state) after having already acted (interrupted the timeless state). \\”You can have no-thing and still say it has the potential to create something without being contradictory.”\\ — Well again, I’m not arguing that there is anything logically contradictory about something coming from nothing. With no water, there cannot even be a primordial soup for abiogenesis to occur. To infer what is the cause of the universe, we have to build a coherent model that is in agreement with such arguments. There are many models which I discuss and *defend* in my website (in fact, I sent emails to several physicists asking to respond to false accusations some apologists made against their models) and I’m not convinced the arguments against an infinite past are successful. . mean literally everything in both steps, then a charge of the fallacy of equivocation cannot stand. With all that said, I’m still unclear of how your hyperspace scenario can explain how our appears to have begun to exist only approx. And Craig is extremely biased because of emotional reasons. This is not based on what we don’t know. . Again, indeterminism and spontaneity changes nothing. Here is the reason: If your model is coherent, then my model is also coherent (because free will doesn’t make any difference, so I argue). Did you notice what the author wrote? Because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present.” You: “Indeed. . Regarding the argument from personal causation: it doesn’t support the causal principle at all. I’ll quote from that Mammen writes The Bible describes God as spaceless (see 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6), timeless (1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), immaterial (John 4:24, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16), powerful (Psalm 62:11-12, Job 9:14, Matthew 19:26), uncaused (Psalm 90:2, Isaiah 57:15, 1 Timothy 1:17, Revelation 1:8), supernatural, and is a personal being (John 1:12, James 4:8). Furthermore, I’m not convinced at all that the level of potential bias that Robin possesses is equivalent to Craig’s. You wrote: “I get the feeling you just want to avoid concluding the existence of God and are willing to latch onto any idea that has even a remote chance of helping you do that”. Leibniz, Samuel Clarke, and recently (e.g.) "(Oh, so mere "possibility" is all that's needed? Whenever the top stops spinning, a Universe is spawned . . I really don't have time for this. My point is that it is not metaphysically or logically impossible for something to change without efficient causes. Does The First Law Of Thermodynamics Undermine The Kalam Argument? In other words, your "refutation" of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is only possible if you grant equal possibility that God exists. But perhaps that just means we have to expand our worldview. “A mechanistic agent is something that does the same thing over and over again and cannot change its mind or decide to do something different for no apparent reason. He spoke the heavens into being (Psalm 33:6, John 1:3). But, now responding to the immaterial claim, all the Kalam proves is that the cause is not Minkowski spacetime; not that it is supernatural or spiritual. . I will say whether it will hold or not.”\\ — This isn’t like me telling you what color to paint your car. And I have to say you’re contradicting yourself here. Well, an eternity ago (i.e. . If the big bang were only a relative beginning, then everything you just said would be valid. . But the relevant point which I’m trying to make is that free will doesn’t make any difference to timeless beings: free or not, the exertion of power only takes place when time already exists. How could it be? Imagine if you had a top that was spinning. . Now, granted, the syllogism doesn’t define this cause as “God”. In this context, "Thomistic" means "by Thomas Aquinas". Our "physics" assumes the existence of the universe. "It doesn't affect my belief in the Kalam at all since I don't hold to the Kalam argument in the first place. Likewise, it could stay there for infinity years without “exploding” and just explode when time reaches 1 from the negative infinite timeline (i.e., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1). "You write, "In other words, your 'refutation' of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is only possible if you grant equal possibility that God exists. Or maybe there’s an undiscovered pool of liquid deep underground on Pluto that served as the primordial soup. “I’m not sure how many times I have to point out that whether an event being determined or indeterministic is irrelevant.” So if it's not good for the Creationist, why is it suddenly good for you to use these arguments?By the way, you already know the 1 in 3 is not a contradiction because God is one BEING with three PERSONS and "being" does not equal "person." Perhaps the hyperspace is empty of matter. Unless you could convince me that it somehow does make sense. The argument's key underpinning idea is the metaphysical … Arguments for God’s Existence Debunked. Posted by 3 years ago. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material. I find it implausible to believe that a Triune (3 in 1?) \\”Moreover, saying God willed to interrupt the state at the first moment is like saying I’ve chosen to wake up after or during the time I was already awake — that’s logically impossible; I simply wake up without choosing it.”\\ — There’s no analogy here. To reject the conclusion that the universe has a cause, you either have to affirm that the universe has always existed (contrary to the abundance of scientific evidence and philosophical arguments) or affirm that things can come into being without a cause. . Hence, there can never be T-1 in which the cause doesn’t have what it takes (i.e the necessary and sufficient conditions) to bring the universe into being AND THEN at T-2, T-3, or T-4 gains what it takes to bring it into being. FREE WILL It is powerful, compared to our powers, but nowhere near omnipotence. But it can’t be, because God can’t decide to actualize what is already actual. A and B can be at the same time – can be simultaneous – but which way do you draw the line of causal influence? al Obviously what I meant is that there is no reason to accept free will exists …\\\ — My apologies. If that’s the case, then the same can apply to my model. Does The Cosmological Argument Entail A Contradiction? If you take metric time out of the equation, then how could the hyperspace ever gain the ability to birth the universe? Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. \\” It is not like God could have timelessly chosen not to create the universe.”\\ — Well if that’s true, then neither could your sci-fi hyperspace idea. . RR says that Kalam proponents commit the special pleading fallacy. This is an obvious straw man! "9) I agree with this. I’m amused! But if The Mother is expanding, meaning it gets bigger and bigger as time moves forward, then that means it must have been smaller and smaller in the past. If you make this claim, then you’re the racist here and not me. . You take the negative; “No. Further, there is evidence my model is correct, according to you: arguments against an infinite past, beginning of the universe and bla bla bla. In the first premise, it means literally everything that exists, whereas, in premise 2, it only refers to everything that American consumers purchase. You can say it’s 300 years or so or 1000 years or so from a beginning. They’re deductive philosophical proofs. Just like the super-fast flamingos on Pluto that have such radically different biology (laws of biology that I refuse to specify) that no biologist or philosopher of science could refute me….or even evaluate my thesis in any meaningful way. hahah. I’ve given arguments for that above. In his books, Craig raises the possibility of “undifferentiated time” or “non-metric time” that inexplicably can only apply to God, pre-creation. I don't know. So it will do no good to respond to the argument with “Yeah, but immaterial things aren’t real.”. . Before I give my response, let me inform my readers that I distinguish causes via Aristotelian Causation. that demonstrate that God is an exceptionally irrational solution to problems . Now, would it be up to you to disprove all of these “hypotheticals” or would it be up to me to prove them? Moreover, even if you argue against determinism, the Kalam, then, would be contingent on other arguments for God (i.e., libertarian free will). . It assumes the causality principle and then builds conclusions based on it. You can falsify my metaphysical (and not scientific; I don’t invoke science) model (i.e., a Minkowskiless inanimate cause) by showing our universe did not begin to exist. The deductive cosmological argument from contingency has a long and illustrious history. It’s based on what we do know. "While I'm at it, let me point out the ways that you have misunderstood me so far (I'm sure you've done the same in your dialogues with John, but I don't have the patience to read them).You write, "Instead of God you can posit a yniverse! Craig didn’t present any argument against the strict or broad logical impossibility of the latter. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. Indeed. . And here are some of the problems with that which I address in the above blog posts. Perhaps it consists of only a field or fields. So let me ask you a question; if you knew Christianity were true, would you become a Christian? . What about if the top spun around very slowly? Take a second to support Evan Minton on Patreon! When I say “it must be this or that” I’m just following the evidence. I just have too much on my plate right now.Hopefully, another atheist (or theist, for that matter) will find the argument compelling enough to defend. But since the Universe is not infinitely old, it was not caused in infinity past. \\”You can’t just keep ignoring the problem and saying God’s in “control” of (and thus determining) his action or decision. ­Is this even an argument? . It’s details the many criticisms of the argument, all in one place: If there is no space, matter cannot exist. Metric time? Therefore, it’s immune to criticism of The Borde-Guth Velinken Theorem since that only applies to Minkowski space, not this *different* kind of space. The conclusion of The Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the universe came into being via an efficient cause (God), but with no material cause. This is slightly confusing so let me explain it again. If you want to refute a theory about how God exists with another theory that can demonstrate God does exist, go for it. Am I wrong? Cancel Unsubscribe. I don’t mind at all. When discussing whether space and physics could be eternal” Now, you stated that if there is a non-zero probability of it happening, then it will happen. To say “The universe came FROM nothing” is to say it had no efficient cause. It is not like some power was invested on it. I'm kicking myself for missing it, but it was TOO obvious. If the decision is not caused by some other trigger, then it must be spontaneous (uncaused). Hell, maybe it will help you realise what a moron you are, though I doubt it... ian,It's POSSIBLE that you don't exist and I hallucinated your post. One must suppose that atheists continue to illegitimately accuse the Kalam of committing this fallacy because they just don’t pay attention when it is explained to them. No. Because has reasons to lie, does that mean the car is not economical and bla bla? Well, can you? In fact, I don’t believe there’s a single philosopher in the world without bias. That’s what you said. This is very much like if I argued that life could exist on Pluto, you said no and gave a bunch of scientific reasons how physical advanced life couldn’t exist there, but then I started throwing all sorts of speculative answers. So, please, answer my question: is God’s decision to act caused by something else? . I don't know if we can ever know. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. ­It is possible that mathematics can describe the physical hyperspace, but that doesn’t imply the hyperspace must be abstract rather than concrete. – Are you going to admit you made a bad argument or admit your weird sci-fi hyperspace idea is incoherent?” . The cause of its existence is something other than itself. It's possible that humanity will never know.It is not "god" against the "yniverse." 3: therefore, it is an unembodied mind. The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Debunked (The First Cause Argument - Refuted) - Duration: 8:46. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. The only way an argument can unsound is if it has false premises, no reason to believe the premises, or if the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Finally, I agree that Free Will is only possible if there’s a soul. . Perhaps I was not clear enough. Didn’t I? EX NIHIL NIHIL FIT The same applies to any other ordinary mechanistic cause. I argued that given that the cause is immaterial (since it is the cause of all space) it can either be an abstract object or an unembodied mind. Sure. Nothing you said in your first paragraph of this topic refuted my point that God could will time to come into being in a timeless state, and the very decision making would itself be the first moment of time. Indeed. It is not so impressive to me (compared to the view of God who is omnipotent). That is, there must be a material cause, but I see no reason to believe a tree in another possible world requires an efficient cause to change. I’m confused. . But this doesn’t mean that such a thing really could happen. "Well, great. This is patently false. The same can’t be said about atheism, unfortunately. Mathematically speaking, anything with a non-zero probability will occur if given enough time. You said “you cannot claim it is a mind or an abstract object because it has not been established these things actually exist.” which sounds to me like “you can’t use this argument because you haven’t proven immaterial minds exist”. . : Proving That Science and Logic Show It Is More Rational To Think That God Exists”, Neil Mammen explains that a mechanistic agent (by this, he means any cause or set of causes that isn’t a personal being) could not exist eternally and changelessly without also doing X once infinitely long ago or X an infinite number of times. My bad. can decide to do something different than it has been doing). Finally, you stated “it doesn’t get around the problem of this impersonal thing sitting around changelessly and -at least functionally equivalent to being timeless, and then all of a sudden, it spontaneously births the universe” As for being the specific God I believe in, I’d recommend a look at The Case For The One True God. THE MECHANISTIC AGENT DELIMMA Yes, I totally agree. I can send you the pdf if you’re really interested. I’m not saying that “Craig is extremely and obviously biased, therefore, he must be wrong.” No, I didn’t say that. But there are not necessarily sequenced. Now, I think I’ll respond to your point regarding the non-zero probability of something happening in an infinite timeline. Furthermore, that’s what you’re doing here, too: you’re taking something we’re familiar with (minds), and then saying “well, but it can’t be a human mind, since such minds are not powerful enough to create a universe… such minds didn’t exist forever… such minds are finite and limited… such minds are temporal… so it must be a different kind of mind: an infinitely powerful and eternal mind.” Both of us are taking something we are familiar with, and then saying something like it created our universe. Let’s take option 1: Every time the top make a complete revolution a Universe is spawned. The question “Why did it wait for all eternity to act” becomes meaningless, since the event is not deterministic (it happens for no reason, and therefore does not need any explanation). This leads to my next point; we do mean literally everything in both steps 2 and 3. . Read everything that I've just written. Timeless – It doesn’t have to be timeless. He seems to think there is quantum gravity (which is actual) and not nothing. \\\” I’m not convinced the arguments against an infinite past are successful.
Family Dollar Pots And Pans, Clinton Township Schools, Epiphone Wildkat Studio, Hydrangea Too Much Sun, Easy American Spaghetti, Computer Engineering Technology Vs Computer Engineering, How To Keep My Indoor Plants Warm In Winter, Sweetwater Military Discount,