Well in this case, if the top was going to stop spinning and we looked back in infinity, how long ago would the top have stopped spinning? “If one asserts something cannot come FROM nothing, then they are saying something must come FROM something else (i.e a cause).” . But here we are.” 2. 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. \\”Youâre proposing God made a choice (leaving the timeless state) after having already acted (interrupted the timeless state). . In other words, your attack on the conceptual analysis depends on premise 2 of the Kalam being false. Variations on the Cosmological Argument: The Kalam Cosmological Argument. He doesn’t even say what the arguments are. According to him, time is a relative concept. Whatever begins to exist has a cause, given that the universe began to exist, if follows that the universe has a cause of its existence. That’s why none of the arguments for free will (like Tim Stratton’s “FreeThinking Argument”) are empirical in nature. But the point remains that such a being as described by this argument must exist” 2. The same can’t be said about atheism, unfortunately. There are so many problems with your refutation that it would take me the whole day to refute point by point. Whether God “always” had chosen to create is a theological debate. Indeed. However, it seems me you failed to understand my refutation. The most popular proponent of this argument is William Lane Craig. But using that would not work because you’re already presupposing it is a metaphysical and not a nomological principle. "I could claim that it's the writer's fault. Thus, the debate would come down to whether all physical reality had a beginning and thus required an immaterial entity as its cause. One of his many videos is The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked - (First Cause Argument Refuted). So, I concede that Dawkins is probably biased against theism (probably because of rational motivations and not emotional ones, which is the mark of theism), but it has not been established Robin’s motivation for writing the article is also atheistic — and this is my point. Some have been around for centuries, and new arguments are popping up every day. “Youâve given crappy rebuttals” Then you stated that even if we have no free will, it doesnât matter because the Kalam proves the cause must possess it. Plus, let me add that you failed to differentiate between a personal and an impersonal cause in this new argument (that if there is a non-zero probability of happening, it will happen). calvindude,Once again you demonstrate your horrific inability to read and understand anything that I write! This being that is demonstrated to exist by this argument is consistent with The Christian God. 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). You stated that it doesn’t matter if we don’t have free will, because the Kalam proves the cause must possess free will. Our options seem to be limited to (1) a single universe banged into being infinitely long ago, (2) no universe ever comes into being, (3) The Multiverse (which is plagued with issues as I’ve already pointed out), and (4) God. . If this is the case, then one would not have to worry about the cause being frozen eternally. 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).. I think I’m starting to see why you’re not seeing the problem. How does it operate? 1. It is certainly not Minkowski spacetime or ordinary matter. It must be a timeless being. 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. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. View discussions in 1 other community. It would be something. . The second is that every effect has an efficient cause? What causes this contingent being to exist must be a set that contains either only contingent beings or a set t… . Metric time? RR’s objection is pretty damn trivial. Since we now had a change in what God did; (i.e no creation –> creation). Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) â Anything able to create all matter, energy, space, and time out of absolutely nothing must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent. Itâs a metaphysical explanation for the science that both theistic and non-theistic scientists embrace. That's exactly what you are doing. If this is a space different than Minkowski space, what are the properties of that space? Any act of doing anything would pull him into time. Now, I acknowledged attempts to do this and in the above article I deferred the reader (in this case, that would be you) to other blog posts in which I address attempts to get around an absolute beginning. If God’s decision to create is simultaneous with His actual exercise of His creative power, then this would avoid there being a temporal moment before the first temporal moment. ON THE CAUSEâS FREE AGENCY IN A TIMELESS STATE The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked MrTweej. \\\” Iâm not convinced the arguments against an infinite past are successful. . “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)”. No. . On the other hand, both of us know Craig has many reasons to argue simultaneity is possible, one of them being that it is necessary for the Kalam to work (or isn’t it not?). FINAL THOUGHT BEFORE ENDING THIS COMMENT So, I’m not convinced by Craig’s claims. :-)JOHN:"Not to me. If this is the case, then one would not have to worry about the cause being frozen and never having the. And apparently either calvindude is 12 years old and went to bed early (his reading comprehension would lend evidence for this), or he has realized that he is an idiot and has bowed out. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. “the problem is that âMinkowski Spaceâ is the only kind of space weâre familiar with. But again, strict logical possibilities come cheap. Perhaps the hyperspace is empty of matter. William Lane Craig has a nice short article explaining this distinction specifically related to the principle of ex nihil nihil fit. We mean all matter, energy, space, and time that ever was, is, or will be in both steps 2 and 3. But I won't because I understood you exactly (see below). But then you presented an argument against the possibility of something coming from nothing and the argument from Personal Causation. After all, I could also say there is a non-zero probability that God could create the universe in an infinite timeline, because if it is zero, then God would never create it. But here we are. . Remember it cannot think, it has no free will it has not mind to make a decision. Is it A that’s causing B, or B that’s causing A? Well, can you? — https://www.noblindfaith.com/pdf/sermon/TheSingularityWhoisAgentX.pdf share. 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 existedâ¦ that is, everything is the result of Creatio Ex Materia (creation out of material).”. That's right, you've got *TIME* there. "I am merely pointing out that if you accept a yniverse, you might as well accept God because, according to the rules YOU set up, you'd have equal proof for both. \\\”because we know the (macro) world or classical world obeys deterministic laws, and there is no reason at all to suppose human brains (and therefore, minds) must be different from that since it is part of the deterministic world.”\\ — This would only be true if humans were purely physical biological organisms, or “meat machines” as some put it. How is that relevant in this discussion? 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. Objection 1: The Argument Doesn’t Support Theism, Rationality Rules (RR) says “Even if the Cosmological Argument were accepted in its entirely, all it would prove is that there was a cause of the universe, and that’s it. Whether the model is coherent is another story (after all, even if this one is incoherent, one could build a similar model that has no problems). Rationality Rules indicts The Kalam Cosmological Argument for committing the fallacy of equivocation. And I explained why your response was a lousy response, didn’t I? . "A comparison of my "yniverse" and your "god" doesn't land in your favor. Perhaps I was not clear enough. It is like saying the number five always existed and therefore there was never nothing. I’m pretty confident people reading these comments will realize my response is correct and you’re avoiding it because there is no good objection to my argument. I’m extrapolating from what we’re already familiar with. The cause could well be some sort of hyperspace or any other entity we could never understand. Since this is not possible, it is not a perfect argument. The cause of its existence is something other than itself. ÂNow, obviously this is just hypothetical, but this is irrelevant to my point, since both of us are agreeing with one point: an infinite past of metric time is impossible and the big bang singularity model implies Minkowski spacetime began, and then presenting just hypothesis to explain this. . Now, I’ll say for the last time: I’m did not say something came from nothing with no efficient and material causes, okay? It may stay there for infinity years and never explode or it may explode when it reaches t=+1. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. If a yniverse is possible, however, the KCA is defeated.You write, "Tell me again why this is more rational than believing in God? One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)”. Itâs beginningless.” Another reason is that if you do not allow for an uncreated Creator, if you insist that God must have a Creator, you get thrown into an infinite regression. The same applies to abstract objects, by the way. . The ancient philosopher Aristotle recognized that there are different types of causes. Now, I am NOT trying to shift the burden of proof here. Therefore, it follows God’s decision only occurred when the effect was already existent. Dawkins doesn’t dispute that the argument successfully proves the existence of an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful personal Creator of the universe. If God is different then us, again: so what? #1 is not a known fact, but a supposition. Close. You: “It is not like God could have timelessly chosen not to create the universe.ââ The fallacy of equivocation is when an argument uses the exact same word, but employs two different definitions of the word. . Imagine if were having a debate “Is Pluto Inhabited?”. What I’m challenging here is the claim that the causal principle — in the sense of efficiency — is metaphysically necessary — and not merely nomological. In the absence of anything to realize any physical laws, no physical laws will exist. And abstract mathematics doesnât need to be physical. 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. The decision is only made when there is time, and if that’s the case, then a mechanistic cause would work just as fine — the non-free trigger or pull just occurs when there is a first moment of time. If it’s the former, then it doesn’t matter what number you put on it. No creator could ever come into being because there would always have to be a creator before him to bring him into being. Debunking "The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Debunked" by atheist "Rationality Rules" Video. \\”So, I reject the Platonist and Substance-Dualist views that abstract objects and minds are immaterial.”\\ Ok, so what? Moreover, Undifferentiated time is just sequence or indices, unlike the metric time that does move or change in equal intervals. So, I see no reason to say it is supernatural — in the sense proposed by theists (i.e., like a floating mind). 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." cause. So, the conditions of this universe must be such that entropy doesn’t hold. IF spontaneous events can occur, the possibility of insufficient but necessary non-personal causes is certain. In this context, "Thomistic" means "by Thomas Aquinas". ON THE CAUSE’S FREE AGENCY For Hyperspace to lack the sufficient conditions but THEN gain them would require metric time. All other religions involve either an eternal cosmos that have God or gods bringing order out of the eternally existing matter, energy, space and time, or else their god is the universe itself (pantheism). This is logically and metaphysically possible and you’ve provided no arguments to think otherwise.” Craig wrote: “There is also an alternative which Mackie failed to consider: (iv) prior to creation God existed in an undifferentiated time in which hours, seconds, days, and so forth simply do not exist. The universe had a beginning. So, even though the cause of the universe may be immaterial, we know it can’t be a mind or an abstract object (in the way non-platonists and non-dualists define them). For example, both of us agree the cause lacks the property of metric time, ordinary space and ordinary matter. . So the premise that “free will has never observed such thing in the world.” is a red herring. Debunking "The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Debunked" by atheist "Rationality Rules" Popular atheist YouTuber "Rationality Rules" tried stepping on the famous Kalaam Cosmological Argument popularised in recent time by Christian William Lane Craig and ended up stepping on himself. I don’t know what are the other arguments for the cause being personal, but I’m sure this one we discussed extensively is not convincing at all. al and (B) we give arguments for that. There was never a time when it was not actualized along with the first moment to have to interrupt such a state. That’s why I said you can’t use probability to determine whether it will explode or not. I’m not saying “Humans’ actions are determined, therefore, God’s actions are determined.” No, that would be a huge non-sequitur. :/. And I’ve addressed both of these already. Again, “potential” simply means it can do something. It doesn’t have to contain matter at all. If we use this word rather than “potential” (which seems to incorrectly imply potential is actual), then it becomes easier to understand the question. So, when we finish this discussion here, I’ll certainly comment there. You don’t say, but it’s just a kind of space unlike space as anyone would usually describe it. You could disagree that the first premise isn’t warranted because you think our universe is part of a wider universe that caused it to come into being, and that claim is what I’ve been pounding on for the past 28 comments. . Therefore, it is clear that the Kalam is dependent on the truth of substance dualism. All these pieces of evidence show are that our space-time realm began to exist and needs an external cause. If you want to say it’s some weird meta-universe that has a spacial fabric utterly unlike ours, you need other evidence. I explained why before: because “potential” is not a magical fluid that something contains. That’s why I’m into apologetics. Therefore, God is Chinese”. 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. I'm okay with that. You would remain in that state eternally. . So, please, answer my question: is God’s decision to act caused by something else? It’s very short, so please read it. (emphasis added). The thing about all other eternal universe models is that they at least are intelligible by the currently known (even if only partially known) laws of physics, such as The Mother Universe Theory, The Oscillating Universe model, The Steady State Model, The Carrol-Chen Model etc. In fact, I even stated in my last comment that “you could say, it is not relevant to the point here since weâre already assuming it came from nothing physical rather than changing form, but it misses the point: it would still have implications for other arguments” that do not involve the coming into being without efficient and no material causes. . . Assertions aren’t persuasive to me. Me: “Well if thatâs true, then neither could your sci-fi hyperspace idea. . . I’m simply saying it’s a transcendent and more powerful version of what we’re familiar with. ÂOn the contrary; because this time is undifferentiated, there is no sequence as Craig explained in his Time and Eternity. . 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. If potential is a property (and I think it is at least) then if there was ever truly nothing (no matter, energy, space, time, angels, demons, not even God Himself, absolutely nothing at all), then there would be no potential for the universe to come into being. Sure, but we know it can’t be Minkowski space and ordinary laws because the arguments against infinite regress, entropy and the BGV theorem rule that out. It is certainly true that if the universe changed form spontaneously at the Big Bang from a previous Minkowski space, then it came from something else (a material cause), but was not caused (no efficient cause) since it changed spontaneously. They’re deductive philosophical proofs. And again, it is irrelevant whether the hyperspace is deterministic or indeterministic. Unlike ordinary deterministic causes, there is no necessity here (the cause could explode or could not; there is no law saying it MUST explode). The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked! 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. What about if the top spun around very slowly? Actually, I don’t really think a hyperspace is necessary at all. Now, perhaps what you meant is that only actual things can actualize potentials — no potential can actualize itself. "Well, you haven't defined it yet. But then this is just personal incredulity since there is no reason to believe it is irrational. . That is testable.Many other things are untestable, like a deity, a yniverse, and fairy-tale creatures. If the decision is not caused by some other trigger, then it must be spontaneous (uncaused). "Of course, you still need to define time, so we can't really answer whether that is a contradiction yet. It’s that we have no observed examples of things coming into being without an efficient cause. Indeed. In his book “Who Is Agent X? . It’s not the kind of life that needs water.” blah blah blah. The deductive cosmological argument from contingency has a long and illustrious history. If it is possible, the KCA fails.My explanation of the origin of the unverse is "[*shrug*]." Personally, I think a temporally eternal universe is much simpler than any hyperspace or whatever. One possibility is that the exertion of power is spontaneous. 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). It has been re-worked several times to reach its present, most widely recognized form--i.e. You wrote \\\”The argument Craig presented against âsomething from nothingâ in that article is that if there were ever nothing and then a universe âafter itâ, then there was the potential for the universe to exist, but âpotentialâ is not nothing, so there was always something. mean literally everything in both steps, then a charge of the fallacy of equivocation cannot stand. . . If the decision is not caused by some other trigger, then it must be spontaneous (uncaused). What is that function? It exists in undifferentiated time which is equivalent to timelessness. I do want to comment on one thing thought You wrote \\”weâve never observed intentional states being simultaneous with external effects.”\\ — William Lane Craig actually responded to this objection in a relatively recent episode of The Reasonable Faith Podcast. We can’t keep pushing scientific or metaphysical models if they have the problems you just mentioned. There doesn't need to be a yniverse in order to defeat the KCA. Regardless of how one responds to this, it is the tu quoque fallacy. Yep, that's right, although yours is your God. ÂRemember, this is just a metaphysical model I’m building here. You presented no argument against this possibility. I can deny this principle and still accept that something cannot come from nothing. But since the Universe is not infinitely old, it was not caused in infinity past. The argument is that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”. It is like saying the number five always existed and therefore there was never nothing.”\\\ — I’ve never heard Craig make this argument. . 4. I’m not representing Krauss’ proposal technically because this doesn’t matter; what matters is the idea that atheists have in their minds when they think of the model. It could be something totally different from our universe. So, this time can be eternal. Are you saying that something can come into being OUT OF nothing and not violate the law of causality? Thatâs incoherent.”\\ — It is indeed incoherent, which is a good thing that that is not at all what I’m saying. To falsify the inference to the spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncreated Creator would be to undermine one of the two premises” 5 Definitive Answers To "You Never Were Christians", Doubt Is The Adult Attitude & How Science Helps, Christianity is Unworthy of Thinking Adults, Faith Based Belief Processes Are Unreliable, Dr. Hector Avalos Debates Biblical Morality, Take the Debunking Christianity Challenges, vs Randal Rauser on Atheism vs Christianity, vs David Wood on the resurrection of Jesus, vs Jim Spiegel on the Reasonableness of Christianity, vs William Albrecht on the Virgin Birth of Jesus. I would surely not, since it can be curved by mass and is a real entity (according to General Relativity). I re-read your comment again carefully, and you said “it would still have implications for other arguments like the one about the personal cause choosing in an infinite timeline” but I have never argued that God created having endured through an infinite amount of time. I took it in its typical since of empirical evidence. If theyâre not there. You can’t just keep ignoring the problem and saying God’s in “control” of (and thus determining) his action or decision. Objection 2: It Doesn’t Prove The Universe’s Cause Was The First Cause. 14 billion years ago. I just have to trust that they’ve done their due diligence, did their best to recognize their bias and put it aside, and then evaluate what they actually said. However, in every defense of The Kalam Cosmological Argument I’ve ever heard given, this is not where the argument stops. I don’t have to accept your dilemma because both alternatives are false. In this case, the conclusion that the universe began to exist. I’m conceding the arguments against infinite regress and scientific arguments are true for the sake of the argument, so that we can discuss the important subject without avoiding it and jumping to other non-related arguments. 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. I’m watching the video you presented and thinking “Is this guy (Evan) serious?” I accuse apologists of being extremely biased and thus having strong reasons to misrepresent, ignore or rationalize evidence and then you present a video of an extremely biased apologist (who posts horrible videos trying to prove the existence of God and criticizing atheists almost every week) and, hence, has reasons to misrepresent the actual research, to prove I’m wrong! You’re not responding to my actual argument. Metric time does change independently or automatically. No problem with that since it did not begin to exist. hide. The idea of intending to do something at a later moment in time provides Craig with the crucial difference between a personal and non-personal cause. Additionally, the fact that “it is metaphysically possible that a biological species similar to flamingos â a meta-flamingo â can exist.” wouldn’t make you ready to abandon your confidence that Pluto is barren. Only personal beings have minds. I will say whether it will hold or not.”\\ — This isn’t like me telling you what color to paint your car. Those arguments only go to show that Minkowski space, metric time, matter and energy began to exist. . \\”What I stated is that the Ex nihilo nihil fit principle does not support the causal principle; these are different principles that say different things: one dictates something cannot come from nothing and the other that something cannot spontaneously occur without an efficient cause (e.g., a tree spontaneously becoming a chair). I don’t mind at all. A non-mechanistic agent on the other hand is an agent that can change its mind and can decide to do something different. No, I’m just doing what you’re doing: following the evidence and going where it leads. That’s the only difference. Because it violates none of the laws of logic; non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle. If you want to refute a theory about how God exists with another theory that can demonstrate God does exist, go for it. 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? “if you knew Christianity were true, would you become a Christian? To understand why this argument doesn’t work, we have to dissect it: Craig asks, “If the big bang occurred in a super dense pellet existing from eternity, then why did the big bang occur only 13,8 billion years ago? "I think time is a function of matter, just like Einstein leads us to think. Including causal laws. calvindude,If you would kindly reread my post instead of proving yet again what a humorous little idiot you are, you would have seen that I was not being nearly that existential. None of that "Ockham's razor" stuff for us, eh?) ÂIs this even an argument? If it had at least one property, it wouldn’t be anything. God has always and forever existed without cause and will always and forever exist (even though our entire experience is that everything has a beginning and an ending) as a fully formed being (even though our entire experience is that order grows incrementally) with all knowledge (and consequently never learned anything), with all power (but doesn’t exercise it like we would if we saw a burning child), and who is present everywhere (and who also knows what time it is everywhere in our universe even though time is a function of movement and bodily placement). As for being the specific God I believe in, I’d recommend a look at The Case For The One True God. So, there is nothing of substance to respond here.”\\ — Well, you could respond to when I asked how non-being can have potential. Stephen T. Davis, Ronald Nash, Robert Koons, and Alexander Pruss. \\”Moreover, saying God willed to interrupt the state at the first moment is like saying Iâve chosen to wake up after or during the time I was already awake â thatâs logically impossible; I simply wake up without choosing it.”\\ — There’s no analogy here. Finally, I agree that Free Will is only possible if there’s a soul. Ok Option 2. Your attitude is analogous of me sending you a video of Dawkins or Hitchens with the intent of proving atheists are not biased. 3: therefore, it is an unembodied mind. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. . A and B can be at the same time â can be simultaneous â but which way do you draw the line of causal influence? “the decision to create would be an âinterruptionâ of the state of timelessness”. In this article I linked to âDoes The Multi-Verse Explain Away The Need For A Creator?â and âIs The Universe A Computer Simulation?â More recently, I have written an article addressing various models titled “Eternal Universe Models – Going For The Philosophical Jugular” That is, rather than saying “It is either a mind or an abstract object” you could say “the fact that the cause is immaterial, increases the probability of theism, because it postulates the existence of immaterial minds.” But, then, I would again point to the fact that it doesn’t have to be immaterial but only Minkowskiless (i.e., other types of non-spiritual universes we can make up right now). “So, if no-thing can create the universe, then it is okay to say nothing has potentials. 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. 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. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. To have a beginning to oneâs existence entails a before and after relationship. You wrote: “After all, God is a spirit even if no one else is.” One of my patrons brought this video to […] The conclusion of The Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the universe came into being via an efficient cause (God), but with no material cause. I can’t read minds after all. As I explain in the above blog posts, we do in fact have powerful scientific evidence as well as philosophical arguments which show us that the whole of physical reality (space, time, matter, and energy) had an absolute beginning. “If they were eternally present, then how is the effect (i.e the universe) not just as eternal as the cause (the hyperspace)?” It seems to me, from your worldview, that you have exactly as much proof for a yniverse as you do for...well, pink unicorns on Pluto. It would be like saying “Humans are made of matter, therefore, God must be made of matter.” 1. This would mean that the claim that a personal cause is necessary is false and the possibility of the universe arising from, say, an ordinary eternal mechanistic cause cannot be dismissed. Moreover, would you tell me not to read writings about slavery or police brutality if it’s written by a black person? But you ask, what if the top takes infinitely long to make one spin? That is, just because our Minkowski space began, doesn’t entail a hyperspace could not have existed prior to it and be its efficient cause. This is an argument for an immaterial being outside of space-time physical reality. Plus, the language I used to refer to the absence of all actual things (i.e., âitâ) is just for practical purposes. . Yes, the syllogism by itself only gets you to “The universe had a cause”, but why take Christian Apologists to task for unpacking the implications of that conclusion with additional arguments? 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. I would not say the hyperspace is spiritual. Cosmological argument debunked william lane craig. "9) I agree with this. I see people dying for their religion, but I don’t see people dying for their favorite theory of metaphysics or epistemology. And the logical law of excluded middle tells us it must be one or the other. You could perhaps argue it doesn’t matter if we’ve never observed it because it is implied by the Kalam. Only the Abrahamic religions (and Deism) teach that a God like the one described above brought all physical reality into existence from nothing. "(Oh, so mere "possibility" is all that's needed? So, maybe you should read again to fully understand my point. . And if you do understand it but refuses to respond, then, again, it is not my fault. Thanks for you help on this one. But I’ll only call attention to some points. Rationality Rules 108,273 views. 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. I’m denying there are actual things; only potential things (which are obviously not actual). This is just a pitiful objection to The Kalam Cosmological Argument. And his arguments are very convincing. Therefore, if you’re picking a view about God based on the cosmological argument alone, your list of options consistent with the evidence is limited to just 4 options, Christianity being among them. So, it is silly to say there was the potential and thus there was something. Therefore, it follows it is metaphysically possible that a space entity similar to Minkowski space — a hyperspace — can exist. The same applies to any other ordinary mechanistic cause. Hence, God’s decision to create time and the beginning of time happen at the same time (i.e the first moment). Or maybe there’s an undiscovered pool of liquid deep underground on Pluto that served as the primordial soup. 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. Read about Debunked (The First Cause Argument - Refuted) by The Kalam Cosmological Argument and see the artwork, lyrics and similar artists. Hence, even if accepted, the argument doesn’t even remotely support theism.”. 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. I think it’s good that we at least drop the debate over whether your model is ad-hoc. That’s incoherent. Didnât I?”\\ — Of course, you responded to it. .13) BUT, I am not trying to argue for the rationality of a yniverse.14) I'm only demonstrating that the KCA fails to prove that the universe has a cause for its existence because the KCA leaves out the possibility that the universe is "uncaused" in the scenario I mentioned in the post.15) I am not attempting to explain the origin of the universe, because I'm not sure that we can ever know the origin of the universe because our tool for understanding the universe (i.e. Regarding the argument from personal causation: it doesn’t support the causal principle at all. . Non-metric time is not the same as a non-classical hyperspace. This is not ad hoc; this is all supported by empirical evidence and arguments. Wait a minute! That seems to be the only possible solution to the problem. I doubt very seriously that a yniverse exists. Craig didnât present any argument against the strict or broad logical impossibility of the latter.”\\ — This really looks like a distinction without a difference to me. If that’s the case, then the same can apply to my model. The ultimate point is this: Craig (and you) failed to demonstrate the difference between a free timeless agent and a mechanistic timeless entity. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. Since you cannot traverse an infinite number of great great great great grandmother universes giving birth to babies, you eventually have to stop at an uncaused cause that transcends any kind of physical space-time reality. Metric time? However, all proponents of The Kalam Cosmological Argument hold that (A) God is uncaused, uncreated. . Everything that begins to exist has a cause. If so, how does your… idea fare under the weight of this criticism?” The question RR should be asking is not whether additional arguments are needed, but whether the additional arguments given are good. You can say it’s 300 years or so or 1000 years or so from a beginning. But I find this one to be the most compelling. But if you say, yes, then let’s keep debating! You can re-read my post. This is patently false. Moreover, this inference is not contingent on the cause being deterministic. We’d not be warranted in explaining premise 1 if your weird hyperspace-that-runs-according-to-laws-of-physics-no-one-has-ever-experienced-nor-can-they-describe-including-non-Minkowski-space had any merit to it. If this is the same type of contradiction as you seem to indicate, then how can your God act in time? Should we throw out everything he says? It doesn’t eliminate it. How could it be? CASUATION AND SIMULTENAITY Ok. Can you say why exactly? Whenever the top stops spinning, a Universe is spawned I only bring it up in case you’re interested in looking at it at some point in the future. All you’ve done in your previous comment is reassert (A). Thereâs a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. . . that demonstrate that God is an exceptionally irrational solution to problems . But do I posit something ridiculous to explain the origin of the universe just because I can't know its origin? the Kalam Cosmological Argument. âDoes The Multi-Verse Explain Away The Need For A Creator?â, âIs The Universe A Computer Simulation?â, “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. . If one asserts something cannot come FROM nothing, then they are saying something must come FROM something else (i.e a cause). But there is no reason at all to think the hyperspace is expanding — perhaps it is static (unlike Minkowski spacetime which is unstable and must contract or expand). I prefer to accept what Robin is saying instead of Craig (who is obviously extremely biased towards theism and apologetics and is not, therefore, in my personal opinion, trustworthy regarding these matters). In that case, then either the necessary and sufficient conditions to cause the universe to spontaneously come into being were eternally present or they were eternally not. Now, I’m not challenging you to argue in favor of free will here; as I said before, my point, simply, is that the Kalam would be contingent on other arguments for God. Therefore, it is not clear at all the Argument from Personal causation is valid here since it assumes ordinary time. Why is this so important? . But it can’t be, because this prior universe is eternal. You could still say there is a material “cause”, but clearly this would not help your case because, as you admitted, the Kalam doesn’t require a material cause. You can’t say my model is unfalsifiable and then present metaphysical arguments to falsify it (like you did in the last lines of your response). The decision occurred in time, yes. 113, 152), Third edition 2008. . Everyone has an invested interest in what theyâre writing. Nope, time has to pre-exist God’s decision. But when I hear someone say something came FROM nothing, I take that to mean that it came into being without a cause. But here is the catch: it is not. After sleeping on it, I realized the simplicity of what I missed. Of course, the change from no-decision to decision would be a change in metric time moments, but this need not be problematic as long as the decision to create on God’s part is simultaneous with His acting on that decision. 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. EX NIHIL NIHIL FIT I would not say that God’s (nor anyone elses’) decisions are “spontaneous”. So, that’s the problem here. In this video we debunk the Kalam cosmological argument (commonly used by Dr William Lane Craig). Supernatural â It depends on how one defines “supernatural”. calvindude wrote:"Oh, so mere "possibility" is all that's needed?"Yes. Especially logical and metaphysical possibilities. Moreover, in the Pluto analogy, it is possible, at least in principle, to look for other empirical evidence that may life exist there. \\\”‘such that it avoids the scientific and philosophical problems’ But is not that the point?? Even though the world may appear to be self-perpetuating, it is necessary to … Why? . RR says “. . And I have to say you’re contradicting yourself here. However, as I pointed out in my website, âpotentialâ is not a Platonic substance. Well then, the universe would never have been spawned. I don't know. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. How can we meaningfully say there is a non-zero statistical probability of it exploding in 2 million years, for example? I get it. \\”I donât 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. And maybe there are no pictures of them from NASA because they’ve evolved the ability to run so fast that they’re invisible to the naked eye. 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. “God is the cause of his own decisions. We mean the same thing by “universe” in both steps 2 and 3. physics) does not work for attempts to understand the universe's origin (physics presupposes a universe).16) By showing that this argument is invalid, I have gotten one step closer to demonstrating that "you have exactly as much proof for a [God] as you do for...well, pink unicorns on Pluto. . . If it’s the later, then it’s impossible for the hyperspace to ever birth our universe. But obviously it’s more than once. Quantum mechanics does not in fact posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuum–which is not “nothing.” Hence there is no “time, and then he chooses that time will exist” as you put it. So…which premise do you reject and why? The Case For Nero Caesar Being The Beast Of Revelation, Promoting Civil Discourse Between YECs, OECs, and ECs, The Historical Reliability Of The New Testament. I wrote: “Personal â So, I reject the Platonist and Substance-Dualist views that abstract objects and minds are immaterial. A contingent being exists. 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. . I’m stating a fact. Furthermore, I’m not convinced at all that the level of potential bias that Robin possesses is equivalent to Craig’s. I was like “Boy, I hope I can handle these responses”. Distance/Time. This leads to my next point; we do mean literally everything in both steps 2 and 3. To say the absence of all actual things has the potential to create the universe is to say that it *can* create the universe. We don’t need to know the probability of your hyperspace scenario birthing the universe. I really couldn’t believe what I was hearing. These expanding universes would become so plenteous that they would all coalesce and form what appears to be an infinitely large and infinitely old universe, which contradicts the scientific evidence that we live in a universe of finite size and age. Just smarter and more powerful.” This is what proponents of the traditional Mother Universe model do. Two other arguments for the personhood of the universe’s cause can be given, and I’ve unpacked these in my book The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity available on Amazon.com in both paperback and Kindle. The most popular proponent of this argument is William Lane Craig. That's the plan. . . I was perplexed, but could not quite put my finger on the problem nagging at me. But again: this would only be relevant if infinite regress were possible. The universe cannot be included because it began to exist. Is it strictly logically possible that our universe is inside some kind of bigger space-time that is utterly unlike the one we experience? Pluto is barren.” I take affirmative “Yes. No, you didn’t. It is merely an abstraction we use to say something can or cannot do something. The only thing I’ve heard out of you that might be problematic is (A) The law of causality doesn’t need to ALWAYS hold, and (B) We’ve “no reason to infer the cause possesses free will since weâve never observed such thing in the world.â. 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. Aquinas - the cosmological argument for the existence of God The cosmological argument stems from the idea that the world and everything that is in it is dependent on something other than itself for its existence. God didn’t use previously existing material to manufacture the universe. You attacked my argument as if I was objecting to the cause being immaterial, when in reality I was objecting to the inane claim that it must be a mind or an abstract object. This is not based on what we don’t know. . That’s why I have no article in my website arguing against theism, but against apologetics. And while that has problems, I can respect it more than this weird idea you’re positing. It would be like if someone argued “God made everything. Both God’s decision and the hyperspace’s spontaneous effect are free of prior determining conditions. This physical state could possess the timeless potential that would be actualized simultaneously with the first instant of time and, at the same moment, would cause time. So, the theist has the burden to give reasons why our brains must be different. No. Nothingness. . And no, unlike your proposal, my proposal is not an alternative cosmological model. "You write, "In other words, your 'refutation' of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is only possible if you grant equal possibility that God exists. It would be a bizarre form of atheism, indeed an atheism not worth the name, which admitted that there exists an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, personal Creator of the universe who may (for all we know) also possess the properties listed by Dawkins. No, it is mechanistic. 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. And maybe they don’t need water to even evolve. And since no creator could ever come into being, the specific creator that brought our universe into existence couldn’t have come into being. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Apples To Oranges. 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. However, God could not timelessly will the creation of something at an earlier moment because there is no earlier moment “before” the creation of the universe. What is that? I’m not saying that “Craig is extremely and obviously biased, therefore, he must be wrong.” No, I didn’t say that. Occam's Razor says the simplest explantion is the correct one. . 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. “And no, unlike your proposal, my proposal is not an alternative cosmological model. It's POSSIBLE that exbeliever is really a Mormon and he's just pretending to be an atheist because he gets his kicks out of it (and all his statements to deny this would just be more proof of how much he gets his kicks out of it). 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. And as The FreeThinking Argument shows, if humans have libertarian free will, then that logically entails that humans are more than bodies. There is nothing to be said against this result. Pluto is inhabited.” Let’s say that I said that there was a species of birds that lived on Pluto, but you objected “That’s impossible. Regardless, in non-metric time and in non-classical hyperspace, cause-effect still holds. For one thing, why isn’t “all matter, energy, space, and time) not synonymous with “everything that ever was, is, or will be”? If you use this argument to disprove the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and let's just pretend that it does just that), the result is that you've left me with an argument wherein God exists with just as much probability as your theoretical yniverse. “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. 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. — The Reasonable Faith Podcast, “Misunderstandings About God and The Big Bang” –> https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/misunderstandings-about-god-and-the-big-bang/ "This, of course, is about as intelligent as asking if God could create a stone too large for Him to lift.But I DEFY you to try to define time. I’m sure you’ve already seen some comments on Youtube or Forums where the theist says: “Something cannot from nothing”, and then the atheist says “Have you ever considered that the meaning of ‘nothing’ in science — a la Krauss — is different from philosophical ‘nothing’?” This means most atheists are comfortable with the idea that before the Big Bang, there was some kind of weird inanimate energy that spontaneously brought our universe into existence. . And one way you could convince me of the contrary is to show me ONE thing that came into being without an efficient cause. “It’s not like life as you know it. . What problem of free will is there? I’m not entirely sure how to respond to this point, but it seems to me that a free agent surely has SOME advantage over a mechanistic agent? If there is a cause of his decision to act, then (1) there is something that triggered, caused or determined that action. What is movement? The first is that something cannot come from nothing. . If my model is incoherent, then yours is as well (because both rely on similar assumptions; no spontaneity). Dawkins said it like this “Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.” 1 and Dr. William Lane Craig responded to it thusly: “Apart from the opening slur, this is an amazingly concessionary statement! That’s what you said. But I can’t imagine anyone embracing your weird hyperspace-that-runs-according-to-laws-of-physics-no-one-has-ever-experienced-nor-can-they-describe-including-non-Minkowski-space on purely rational, scientific, evidential grounds. It is merely an abstraction we use to say something can or cannot do something.