Imma hit ya with the Kalam....

Author: Soluminsanis
Religion
Philosophy

Posts

Total: 11
Topic's author
#1
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 

Stage 2

1. The universe is the totality of all time space and matter.

2. Whatever caused time space and matter must be timeless,  space less,  and immaterial. 

3. Therefore something immaterial,  timeless,  and space less caused the universe,  and these properties are said of God. 

4. Therefore we conclude God exists. 

Obviously a lot to unpack and defend, 

#2
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Soluminsanis
Stage 1

I'm not sure I accept the premises involved and so I do not accept the conclusion by logical extension but assuming that we grant both premises what does it tell us other than that this observable local expression of spacetime (the universe) has some cause without telling us anything about this cause. The Kalam is not an argument for any god(s) but only for some cause.
#3
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Soluminsanis
THose are the qualities of many gods, no? Which god specifically?
#4
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
1. The universe is the totality of all time space and matter.
I do not accept this premise without some clarification. Are you referring to entirety of the galaxy cluster we inhabit (including those galaxies which may or may not be observable to us) the earliest associated event of is known colloquially as the big bang? Or are you referring to any matter and energy which may or may not exist(s)(ed) before after or outside that phenomenon which may or may not have always existed?
2. Whatever caused time space and matter must be timeless,  space less,  and immaterial. 
What even is a thing that exist for no time and takes up no space and is made of no material? 
3. Therefore something immaterial,  timeless,  and space less caused the universe,  and these properties are said of God. 
They are said of some god(s) sure but certainly not all and anyway... well see below. 

4. Therefore we conclude God exists. 
This is a perfect example of the association fallacy. I have skin. A banana has skin. I have DNA. A banana has DNA. I have mass. A banana  has mass. I am on earth. Some bananas  are on earth. I have already found more things that I have in common with a banana than you are even arguing this cause has in common with (your personal preferred god concept). I think we agree that I am not a banana.
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Soluminsanis
Are you defending the Christian God with this or any creative entity at all?

If it's the latter I agree but if I were an atheist, I'd argue against point 1 using very abstract quantum physics. Essentially, the atheist reality is viable because at the core is probably a very strange dimension/plane of reality where things literally transition between being real or unreal. 

I'm curious why no Theist applies the Kalam's logic against their own god though, because if you necessitate reality tonhave had a beginning and a cause, isn't the same true for your god?

#6
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Soluminsanis
  Well it's an argument for a caused universe, not an argument for god. You can't just assert that the cause was spaceless, timeless and immaterial because you don't actually know what the cause was, or if that question of "before" the big bang is even a coherent question. There are models of cyclic cosmology that are derivatives of string theory. Cyclic cosmology hasn't been experimentally confirmed, but that model alone defeats the kalam since it would produce an identical universe to the one we live in.

  In short, it's an argument from ignorance, a god of the gaps, and simply arrogant to assert that you know what nobody actually knows. 
#7
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
its a good argument
#8
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Soluminsanis
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Not necessarily - the big bang occurred before time came into existence, therefore there was no demonstrated causal factor there. Unless you could demonstrate otherwise I would have to add a caveat or just not accept the premise


2. The universe began to exist
In its current state? Yes, but evidence points to the fact that there was something before the big bang, it is not our current universe but it is still a universe. 


3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 
Your syllogism isn't a non-sequitur as it is valid, but it is unsound, as not all your premises are true. 
Stage 2


1. The universe is the totality of all time space and matter.
Yes, but remember that before the big bang there was something, we just don't know what that thing is


2. Whatever caused time space and matter must be timeless,  spaceless,  and immaterial. 
No, immaterial isn't valid there, furthermore, there could still be "space" there, as the big bang had to exist in something. Therefore there was obviously space before the big bang. That thing could be material and take up space. 


3. Therefore something immaterial,  timeless,  and spaceless caused the universe,  and these properties are said of God. 
Those properties of one supposed god.


4. Therefore we conclude God exists. 
That is a non-sequitur  - the cause having properties does not logically lead to a specific cause with those properties, it assumes that to be the only thing with those properties, and it also assumes that thing: exists, and actually did the making. Just because something with the properties necessary to cause the big bang, that does not mean that that thing actually did cause the big bang. 


Obviously, a lot to unpack and defend, 
We would agree
#9
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
It looks good on paper. 
But ya can't argue it. 

Imagine speaking it to a person that gives you their reasons why he or she does not believe in God. 
It would sound like this. 

(  ' Wellllllllllll I think God is true because...........
NUMBER ONE.  
The universe being to exist. 
OK now. 
NUMBER TWO.  
There for the universe has a cause right?  
Then 15 mins later of you explaining number ones, twos to sevens and so on , you pause and say. 
( ' Ok Now , PART TWO'. ) 
( NUMBER ONE' )

○○○○  SIX HOURS LATER  ○○○○
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,080
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Soluminsanis
4. Therefore we conclude all sorts of tall tales.

As ever, the GOD principle /concept is reasonable.

But relatively modern attributions, embellishments and rituals are unnecessary.


Though:
God is, therefore stuff is.... (Or in fact) Stuff is therefore a GOD is, becomes a post event, human contradiction.
#11
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Soluminsanis
Imma hit you back

If the universe is "the totality of all time space and matter," why is it not eternal, and can't it still have a cause? Most syllogisms just don't syllogize with any logic. It is not a matter of simply stringing phrases together, or else

Birds fly
Camels walk
Therefore, butterflies swim

would make sense. But it doesn't, does it? All the elements of a syllogism must actually add up. A+B = C is not a formula into which any values can be plugged.

And, what about energy in your sylloillogic?