Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

Now to address the rest of your post:

You are the only one still belabouring the matter, and with your unwarranted attitude.
I accepted your definition the second time, yet here you are still trying to assert a superiority.

Maybe you missed the point where I said I wasn't yet getting into issues of veracity of the premises?
And maybe you don't acknowledge that the veracity of the premises speaks to the soundness of an argument?
I am currently still trying to review the validity of the argument - which indeed do not require the premises to be proven, merely accepted, which is why I am not yet going to expand on any discussion down the path of whether they have veracity or not.
To that end, and which should have been apparent from what I previously wrote:

Ignored for the time being while we address validity.

See above post about your misunderstanding of validity.

Circular reasoning is a specific form of infinite regress, true, but that does not make infinite regress necessarily circular and thus can not be disregarded on the basis of circular reasoning until shown to be just such a form.

I have not mentioned any such explanation utilising causes within the universe?
Have you?

What does parsimony have to do with logical form?
You are still arguing for acceptability of premises, yet that is a matter of soundness, not validity.
Furthermore, parsimony does not bestow veracity upon a premise.
It may merely inform our judgement of what we accept as true for practical reasons, e.g. when comparing competing theories.

Please come back to this when you have learnt what validity entails.

I see you have now inserted the word "only" into your argument here.
Huh. Go figure.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you do intend to restate your argument to show the lack of a need for only one solution to be considered valid, perhaps you best not reword it so that you do that to very thing you are complaining about?

You mean asserting causality as a premise such as: "Physical existence requires a cause"?
As for your assertions of infinite regress, please show how an infinite series of causes is logically inconsistent with the premises given.
Don't just reassert your claim but set it out, please.

You mean other than the wiki article that states it?
Or do I have to find one that is in English that you will be able to interpret correctly?
Let's see:
"The second argument is not valid because there are plenty of possible situations where the premise is true but the conclusion is false.... The fact that these situations are possible is enough to show that the argument is not valid..."
"To test whether an argument is valid, you should first imagine that the premises are true - whether or not they actually are - and then ask yourself, without appealing to any other knowledge you have, could you still imagine the conclusion being false? If you can, the argument is invalid."
(Theses do link to the source, but on my iPad it's not obvious.)
I doubt you will accept either of these, however, as they do not conform to your understanding.
Most sources simply use the same wording as wiki (as do these sources I have given) and seem to assume that most would understand what it means.

Again with your unwarranted hostility and your seeming overriding desire simply to score points.
It is tiresome.
Did you assert nothingness to be an entity?
Yes, in as much as you offered up the term "entity" as a means of referring to it...
To quote you: "Earlier in this thread I posited that nothingness is the only 'other' non-physical (entity?... abstract object?)"
And now you criticise me for using one of the terms you offered.

As stated previously, I am interested in the validity of the argument at present, not the veracity of the premises.
Further, and as an aside for the time-being, why do you automatically assume that the contention would be with regard the supposed existence of 'nothingness'?

But let's concentrate on the issue of validity, okay, as I feel there is little point in assessing the veracity of the premises if the argument is invalid.

And just to clarify, in case others had picked up on it, while not strictly a matter of validity, I'm including informal fallacies in my scope such as circular reasoning, question-begging etc.
So apologies if I suggest that these alone make an argument invalid, when validity is a matter of form only.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That may be the case. Many people claim that there is such a being, e.g.: god.

As the KCA purports to show. In the KCA as actually used, the KCA is supposed to show that there exists a being that always existed.

You are adding premises to the argument from the start.

Sure, but you maintain that god is a being that we can talk about using the English language. You even used the word "thing" to refer to god. So you should, if you want to be honest, allow us to include gods when we use the word "everything" to refer to the scope of the category of beings that begin to exist. Not "every thing" but "everything that began to exist", that is, the totality of all beings that began to exist.

Yes, logic forces me to agree that you are adding premises to the KCA and misrepresenting the logical argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can ''things'' not have ever existed at all?
What would you say these ''things'' are?

Okay.

Thanks for your concern, but I'm okay with ''everything'', it describes perfectly what we're talking about. All items is not the same as ''everything'', unless you say that it means ''everything''. Then you may as well just use the term ''everything'', like you said, to avoid confusion.

But if you replace ''all items'' with ''everything'', then we have something we can work with.

I'm not convinced all items can be replaced with everything.

If ''all things'' have a cause, then the cause cannot itself be a thing.
If it was a thing, then the first premise is invalid.
So while it may not appear to point to God, ultimately it does. Or something like God.
But something like God, would be God.

You assume that there are ''eternal items'', just like there are items we experience, but with the label ''eternal''.
Is there any reason for this?

That's your problem James. It's not problematic.

The construction is a part of the cause, and the cause is the intent. Without intent, there can be no structure.

No. It began with the intent.

I also believe that all the materials that make up this universe existed prior to the universe.

Yes I agree. All that matter and energy existed prior to the house, but it was not manifested, it was not perceived as the finished product which we now call a house. But without the intention, there could never have been a house. If it was even possible that natural forces alone could build Yazata's house, it would be highly improbable.

I have specified matter/energy, as being eternal.

There's your problem again. You want things designed so they fit into your world view.
''Every thing'', means all things, and a thing is described as an inanimate material object. So Everything means every inanimate object, or all inanimate objects. So ''everything'' meaning all that exists means, every THING that exists. If God was a thing, then a) He wouldn't be God, and we wouldn't be having conversation, and b) we would be able to see if God existed or not. So God is not a thing, and if you wanted to not use the word God, the totality which includes everything, coming into and out of being, cannot be a thing. The other conclusion is that everything is eternal, or something (totality/god) can come out of nothing (whatever that really means).

I haven't agreed to that.
The totality is not another word for God, but it has the basic attributes of God.
There must be a totality even if you don't believe in God.

To your first question, I don't think it does. It requires a cause for its manifestation.

To your second question, it is open.
Let the games begin.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A circular proof certainly wouldn't be informative since it would just repeat what we already know, but it would still be valid in the sense that the premises imply the conclusion.

1. A
2. therefore A (from 1. and identity)

The law of identity is that every proposition implies itself, if A, then A.

JamesR asked us whether we think that Craig's argument is logically valid.

"The reason petitio principii is considered to be a fallacy is not that the inference is invalid (because any statement is indeed equivalent to itself), but because the argument can be deceptive. A statement cannot prove itself."

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html

I would argue that a statement can prove itself, in the same sense that any logical proof can prove anything, namely by demonstrating that the conclusion is a logical consequence of whatever the premises are. If the conclusion is already given as a premise, then the "proof" will be trivial, uninformative and pointless, but it will still be formally valid. (I'm not convinced that Craig's argument is that crude.)

I'll add that while I do think that Craig has carefully chosen his premises so as to imply what he takes to be traditional theistic attributes from Christian theology, I don't think that the primary problem with his argument is its formal validity. (Barker's objection doesn't particularly move me or persuade me otherwise.) I perceive the problem to lie more in the plausibility and truth value of Craig's premises.

 

This is simply not how the English language works.

You might want to bully us into using language your way, but that won't work.

You are doing a poor job of evangelizing.

 

Very true - me bad. I discuss quite a bit with Baldeee off-line and we've recently realised we both do this - confuse informal fallacies with making an argument invalid rather than simply less persuasive.

Indeed - a logical truth, for example, is necessarily valid yet often a trivial circular argument due to simple definition: all husbands are married, etc.

It's not that crude, and the OP concentrated on Barker's reformulation which considered the argument without Craig's ontological argument that bridges the gap between 3. the universe was caused, and 4. the cause is God. That argument, without the missing links, I think is still invalid - as there is no reason to conclude God as the only possible cause.

With regard the KCA as formulated by Craig, I'm tending to agree now that I've reminded myself not to include question-begging in the realm of formal fallacies.

 

Firstly I am not evangelizing, and secondly I am not trying to forcea ny lanuage down anyone's throat.

How would you define "everything"?

Jan,

 

I and others have explained multiple times how the word is used in context.

 

So, there's no "Crazy Little Thing Called Love"?

 

Sorry, James. Baldeee seems to have moved the goalposts without me noticing. He started by attacking the soundness of premises and seemingly demanding that the premises exhaustively exclude all other possibilities. Now he is arguing the validity instead. You are right. The conclusion must follow from true premises, and I've not refuted that fact. I have told Baldeee that premises need not be exhaustive, they need only be true and support the conclusion. He seems to demand that new premises be added until all other possibilities are exhaustively ruled out. That is impractical and not a requirement of a logical argument.

 

1. Physical existence requires a cause.

• Physical existence necessitates a cause, and a cause is sufficient to assume physical existence.
  • This is a simple assertion of causality.
    • "Causality is the relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
  • This implicitly rules out an infinite causal regress.
    • Infinite causal regress is begging the question. No argument that assumes causality as a premise can assert causality (here, infinite causation, i.e. more causality) as a conclusion.
  • This implicitly rules out causal loops.
    • Causal loops are circular reasoning. No argument that assumes causality as a premise can assert any cause, assumed by such causality, to be the conclusion as well.

2. Nothingness is not physical.

• Tautological

3. Therefore, nothingness has no cause.

• Syllogism

4. The universe can possess a net zero total energy.

• Soundness of Alan Guth's supposition of an 'ultimate free lunch' in his inflationary model of cosmology.

5. Therefore, nothingness can be an uncaused cause.
6. The universe began a finite time in the past.

• Causality logically excludes infinite regress.

7. An uncaused cause requires volition.

• No other assumption accounts for a beginning a finite time in the past.

8. Therefore, nothingness and god are equivalent in being volitional cause.


​

This is a valid logical argument, where the premises, if true, cannot lead to the conclusion being false.

 

I have been concentrating on validity throughout, as can clearly be seen in my posts.
I have been at pains not to sidetrack onto issues of soundness until the argument has been shown to be valid.
James will attest to that.
Sarkus as well.
Even others if they have been following the exchange.
Yes, I have briefly responded to issues of soundness but always with the intent (implicit if not explicit throughout my posts) of concentrating on the validity.
Yes, I and others have erroneously included within validity the notions of question-begging etc, but there has been no goalpost shifting away from soundness.
That you perceive such is more likely due to your unwillingness to concede your own misunderstanding of what validity entails: you've been shown your understanding is wrong and now wish to concentrate instead on soundness.

It is if the conclusion wishes to be considered valid.
As explained.
As exampled.
As supported by the quotes (which were written in language that even you should be able to understand, given your misunderstanding of the usual way of describing the principle of validity).
But rather than that you simply now want to ignore validity and move onto whether the argument is sound.

So please quit your whining, Syne, and stop lying that I have in any way shifted the goalposts.
But just so you are clear:
Your understanding of validity remains suspect.
I am not intending to discuss issues of soundness until an argument is valid.
And until you can demonstrate that you actually comprehend what validity actually entails, you will probably be claiming validity of your argument long after the lights are turned off and everyone else has left the room.

So, are you going to address the issues perceived with your notion of what validity entails?
Or are you going to continue making the same mistakes?

 

Just so you are aware, James: Syne has defined "requires" as meaning "necessary and sufficient", even though he is aware of the confusion that this leads if people are not made aware of that specific definition (such as yourself).
So if physical existence "requires" a cause then being caused is sufficient to state that it must be physical.
Thus the non-physical has no cause (per he premise).​

As for his premise 6, that the universe began a finite time in the past, this does not logically exclude infinite regress.
It only excludes it within our universe.
The cause of our universe (U) may have been physical (P1), which in turn may have have a physical cause (P2) etc.
An infinite regress of physical causation, of which our universe is but one link, possibly the last.

So the bullet-point that follows the premise seems invalid.
And if the argument does not rule this possibility out then, as explained to him by you as well as me, any conclusion that does not allow for this possibility is not valid.

 

While I wouldn't otherwise wish to get involved in the debate between you and Baldeee, I must call you out on several things:
The idea that Baldeee has moved the goalposts:
His first post was #237, in which he states: "Since when does logical form make assumptions not within the premises?"
and
"The form of logic doesn't care about the soundness, it merely cares about what can logically follow from what is stated."
Without wishing to repeat the entirety of his post, and using the above as example of focus, it is abundantly clear from the content that issues of validity were the prime direction of his discussion.

His next post, #246: "Until I move onto the soundness of the premises, I'm concentrating on the validity of the argument, otherwise no matter how true the premises, the argument will remain unsound."
and
"No, I'm discussing validity - I haven't even begun to discuss the veracity of the premises."
At this point, his second post to you, he is having to explicitly state that he is concentrating on validity and not soundness.

His post #260 is also mostly with regard to validity.

His post #284: "If you don't mind I'll brush over the veracity..." and continues mostly about validity.

Post #299 (and continuation into #301): "Im concentrating on matters of validity, not soundness..."

So please do point out exactly where Baldeee has moved the goalposts?


Secondly, your understanding of what a valid logical argument is still wrong.
You state that all other possibilities do not need to be ruled out, yet anyone who has had even a basic lesson in logical form will tell you that that is precisely what a valid argument must do: if the premises are true and there exists any possibility of another conclusion other than the one reached then the conclusion reached is invalid. It might not be wrong but it is an invalid conclusion, and thus the argument is necessarily unsound.
Simply put, such a conclusion, if it is just one possibility, does not satisfy the requirement that an argument is valid if, and only if, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion reached to be false.
If there exists an alternate solution to the one you reach then by definition it is invalid argument.


It remains ironic yet frustrating that you are so obnoxious and arrogant in your tone, so desiring to assert a self-perceived authority, yet you would not actually be wise enough to be sure you built your pedestal on solid ground. Baldeee used the analogy of you standing in quicksand while someone tries to throw you a rope, but that metaphor breaks down if no one can any longer be bothered to help you. Give them reason to, Syne.

I suppose at this juncture it would be too much for you not only to apologise to Baldeee for besmirching his name but also actually address the criticism he, I and others have put before you with regard your incorrect understanding of what validity actually means?

 

The word god is magnenemous. It needs to be defined. It can generally be used as a verb, adjective, and a noun.

 

I was thinking of the wrong word I guess. I'm trying to say he's encompasingly large and had generally large perimiter to him. That he's great.

A verb for God would be nomnialized but not necisarily concious. It needs an entity. Maybe to die, or to kill. The angel of death as nomnialized verb. It can be holy, just kind of comes up short as a conciousness.