If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.0713.pdf

Is that your attempt at humor? Pick one and discuss how it supports Kalam. Grab a quote or two from the article.

Is that your attempt at humor?
Because….That is more than what you asked for and now you want to move the goal posts.
The field goal is still easy. Only about 5 yards further than the easy extra point you were asking for.
Beginning to end………………BGV
“Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating – or just expanding sufficiently fast – must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
…………………………
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20]. This is the chief result of our paper.”

Vilenkin went on the paraphrase…...
”It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning”
(Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
Or years later from his paper presented at Hawkings 70th birthday ……

abstract…..
“One of the most basic questions in cosmology is whether the universe had a beginning or has simply existed forever. It was addressed in the singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking [1], with the conclusion that the initial singularity is not avoidable. These theorems rely on the strong energy condition and on certain assumptions about the global structure of spacetime. There are, however, three popular scenarios which circumvent these theorems: eternal inflation, a cyclic universe, and an “emergent” universe which exists for eternity as a static seed before expanding. Here we shall argue that none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”
beginning
“I. Introduction. Inflationary cosmological models [1, 2, 3] are generically eternal to the future [4, 5]. In these models, the Universe consists of post-inflationary, thermalized regions coexisting with still-inflating ones. In comoving coordinates the thermalized regions grow in time and are joined by new thermalized regions, so the comoving volume of the inflating regions vanishes as t → ∞. Nonetheless, the inflating regions expand so fast that their physical volume grows exponentially with time. As a result, there is never a time when the Universe is completely thermalized. In such spacetimes, it is natural to ask if the Universe could also be past-eternal. If it could, eternal inflation would provide a viable model of the Universe with no initial singularity. The Universe would never come into existence. It would simply exist.”
Conclude…………
“…….3 Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.2 Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse. Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse.”
next....
In the ….disturbing implications of a cosmological constant
Basically these guys were saying the either dark matter doesn’t exist or else…..
The other “……possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own …”

But dark matter does exist……which was in one of the others I cited…..
“We propose a comprehensive theory of dark matter that explains the recent proliferation of unexpected observations in high-energy astrophysics. Cosmic ray spectra from ATIC and PAMELA require a WIMP with mass Mχ ∼ 500 − 800 GeV that annihilates into leptons at a level well above that expected from a thermal relic. Signals from WMAP and EGRET reinforce this interpretation. Limits on ¯p and π 0 -γ’s constrain the hadronic channels allowed for dark matter. Taken together, we argue these facts imply the presence of a new force in the dark sector, with a Compton wavelength m−1 φ > ∼ 1 GeV−1 . The long range allows a Sommerfeld enhancement to boost the annihilation cross section as required, without altering the weak-scale annihilation cross section during dark matter freeze-out in the early universe.”

That was very brief but then again you were moving the goal posts. Thus that was good enough for now. Because I don’t trust you won’t childishly move the goalposts again. So if you want to discuss one further in depth then let’s look at either of the “Vilenkin” papers I cited….bc I like Vilenkin. The other two fit better with fine tuning anyway.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf
or
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf

And how exactly does all that demonstrate that the cosmos/universe is fine tuned for human life or vindicate Kalam?

 

[remez]

Remez, it seems like you don’t realize that you canNOT pick definition #6 from the dictionary And claim it is the scientific definition of a physical thing.

I’m clearly and purposefully not claiming that at all. I fully recognize this is not a scientific, physical definition. It is purely philosophical and metaphysical. Science is limited to the natural physical universe. The cause of the universe would have to be from beyond nature and be metaphysical. Not explained by science.
Further…..
When I say that the KCA has scientific support I’m referring to p2 and possibly some of the realm of p1. Very specifically I assert the science can support premises in and argument that reasons God’s existence. I not saying science can absolutely prove God’s existence.

I GET it. I get that word play and trickery are the only tools you have to rescue your theistic ideology. We all get it.

It seems that you do not realize that not everything must be explained by science.

You seem to be philosophically saying that all of philosophy is trickery. Why?
Because
If all of philosophy isn’t just word games then why would you philosophically assert that I’m I just playing word games and not attempting to reason?

But reality intrudes.

Of course reality intrudes, that is what I’m trying to provide an explanation for. You contend it means something different. Thus we both have the burden to defend our opposing contentions. In this case philosophically and providing scientific support.

It is not reason, logic, science or truth for you to use wordplay to shoehorn your god into something that you want to call “reason.”

It is not reason, logic, science or truth for you to simply assert that about my reasoning. Yes I’m reasoning to a different conclusion then you. So why do you just get to shoehorn my efforts as shoehorning?

You offer nothing for me to address there. You seem to philosophically reason that I just have to accept your philosophical assessment as reality.

Time is how we measure change. Change is how we detect time.

I don’t disagree with that.

A being that exists outside of time also exists outside of change. That’s science; it’s reality.

Yes.

And “theistic ideology” or whatever you claimed I don’t embrace, cannot change that truth.

Agree.

The other definitions are colloquialisms, not reason, not reality. The mean something in conversation, “I do this all the damn time!” or some such, but that is not the definition for either science or philosophy.

Yes.

If “timeless” really means without change - as it really means - then your god disappears in a pouffda of stasis.

Why?

But “time” only has meaning when there is change. And when there is change - there is time.

Yes.

And if you imagine a god who changed something, then there was time at the moment of the change from not having decided to do it - to having decided to do it.

Yes. The universe comes into being at the moment he willed it to be. Thus time began at the moment he willed it to be.

You’re hinting at something that you never actually say here….Like …..thinking needs time or something therefore God can’t be changeless. Please make explicit your conflict that God cannot be understood to be timeless. You’re good at avoiding saying anything other than remez is wrong. Support yourself. Don’t be so afraid. Show me you know what you are talking about here. You are the one that said you didn’t have to understand theism to show that it’s in conflict. Well I have agreed with most of what you said thus far, this is no explicit conflict with theology. What are you saying is the conflict? See you really do have to learn about the theology here in order to establish your conflict. Good luck.

And, deep down, you have absolutely no evidence or reason of any kind to suppose That some “god” is at the root of any change anyway.

The KCA reasons exactly that. Thus I have provided reasoning and I’m defending it.

All of your arguments end with, “and therefore, GOD!”

That because………The context IS…… God’s existence. Why should they conclude anything different?
You’re desperately grasping at straws.

But it might as well be, “and therefore, golden toilets!” For all you know.

Conflicts with theology.
Golden toilets full of are material. Golden toilets diarhea are not spaceless, nonphysical, or uncaused. How is that analogous to the reasoning of the KCA? You seem to be the one playing word games.

It’s a leap. A silly one. But I get that it means the universe to you. I’m so sorry. It’s story someone made up.

There is no leap. You only assuming one. You are ignoring the forensic reasoning to blindly assert your analogy to the golden toilet.
By reason, philosophically, theologically, forensically, it means the cause of the universe had to be spaceless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, transcendent, supernatural and timeless sans universe. That is all forensically reasoned from what the cause of the universe had to be. Where is the leap?
Now…
This is the silly leap….. Making up a golden toilet full of diarrhea is a Rhea’s made up story that doesn’t match the reasoning. Why must the cause of the universe be a material, temporal, unintelligent, spaceful, “unpowerful”, impersonal, physical golden toilet? Because it can’t reasonably be any of those things. What reasoning could you possibly have to match the non-leap forensic reasoning I provided?

Seriously these silly leaps to celestial tea pots, farting spacegoats and flying spaghetti monsters and now golden toilets of diarhea are the silly leaps in our reasoning. How can you provide any forensic reasoning for any of those…..well I’ll tell you…..you can’t You just made up a story you thought matched the theism’s “no reasoning leap” to God. Because you didn’t know what the theistic reasoning was to begin with.

Yes if you are going to oppose a system of thought you better first understand what it is you are opposing or else you end up looking completely silly. There is no leap in reasoning there. You were just ignorant of the reasoning. THERE!


And other post…………

Remez you also keep playing the game of “tu quoque” but that doesn’t work either . You keep saying these two are equivalent:

You have me at a loss there. I know they are not equivalent. I’m simply trying to make a case as to why theism is more plausible. To do that I would address your depictions of each and make a case for theism.

There is nothing wrong with doing that. That is how reasoning works. Now if you don’t want to reason through this then simply bow out.
Here is my reasoning ……………….
1) The theistic position is that the BB represents the beginning of the universe. By beginning we mean all matter, time and space. This position is supported by science. The position that the universe began to exist is far more plausible than it is eternal in the past. To cling to and past eternal universe you would have to ignore a lot of science and/or cling to a defenseless….. “bury your head in the sand”…. type of IDKism.

2) To believe that the universe created itself out of nothing is overtly less reasonable than something created universe from nothing.
So………….

• Atheists say that matter, energy and time before the Big Bang acted the same as matter energy and time after the big bang.
  
  Versus
  
  
• Theists say that matter energy and time before the big bang acted completely differently and has a mind and consciousness and personality! than matter energy and time after the big bang.

Well your depiction of the theistic position misses the mark completely. And your depiction of atheism is in conflict with science or less plausible.

1) Your depiction of theism. Theists don’t say the matter, energy and time before the BB acted differently. Theists reason they didn’t even exist. There was no material, no space, no time to act in any way.

2) Your diction of the atheist position. Is confusing. Because the BB event is not clearly presented in your depiction. I know of atheists that reason like theists that the universe began at the BB, that time matter and space had a beginning. Thus matter space and time could not act the same before the BB because they didn’t exist. They have other ideas to avoid theism but they do reason that the BB is when the universe began to exist.

Now it seems that you are saying that the BB doesn’t represent a beginning of our universe. That time space and matter is eternal into the past. Well that position is far less plausible with the science we have today. So how do you make the case the atheism is more plausible? How is time, matter and space eternal into the past?
So I agree with you these are not equivalent any day to the week sister.

 

[remez]

1) I’m not saying you have to find theism plausible. Only to recognize and understand what it is and what it asserts.

a) I don't think that's relevant to the KCA. I think the effort would be a waste of our time.

Please allow me this brief attempt to clarify why it matters to the KCA what God we are arguing for.

I did not offer the KCA to reason that your version of god exists.

The KCA is an argument that argues to a specific God, that I have overtly and repeatedly characterized for you. The one that I’ve been calling the God of theism. (aka the God of the philosophers, the God of classic theism) You have a different idea about the God of theism. Thus the conflict. Hence our back and forth reasoning to address the conflict. The God I presented the KCA to support is not in conflict with the KCA.

The KCA argues from the universe’s deduced cause to a God that is transcendent, supernatural, timeless sans creation, immaterial, spaceless, nonphysical, powerful, intelligent and personal creator. And it not conflict as it is with your god. If you want the argument to reason to some other god then the KCA would not apply. Heck….. I don’t believe in your god either.

So we began our discussion in the context of me providing evidence and reasoning for why MY God exists. I began that in the form of the KCA.
But
That was where we didn’t realize that we missed each other. Just what God I was saying existed and you were saying I needed to defend. You had a different god in mind then I did. We thought we were talking about the same God but we were not. I’m not trying to defend your god with the KCA, because I do not believe that your god exists.

You asked me to defend my God, but you are unwilling to let me do that. You are insisting I must argue for a your god a god that begins to exist. Your insistence of this seems based upon your conception that the eternal is limited to time. Thus god began to exist. That is your view of things. And hence the lengthy discussion.

I have provided reasoning and recognized definition that demonstrates that time is a subset of the eternal, because time began to exist and thus its eternal cause had to be timeless. That is the God that I provided the KCA as argument for. The KCA does not argue to a god that begins to exist. It would be flat out unreasonable to do so.

So I admit the KCA cannot defend your version of the god.
But
The KCA is evidence and reasoning that the God (The God of the philosophers, classical theism) exists.

Your thoughts?

 

[remez]

Is that your attempt at humor?
Because….That is more than what you asked for and now you want to move the goal posts.
The field goal is still easy. Only about 5 yards further than the easy extra point you were asking for.
Beginning to end………………BGV
“Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating – or just expanding sufficiently fast – must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
…………………………
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20]. This is the chief result of our paper.”

Vilenkin went on the paraphrase…...
”It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning”
(Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
Or years later from his paper presented at Hawkings 70th birthday ……

abstract…..
“One of the most basic questions in cosmology is whether the universe had a beginning or has simply existed forever. It was addressed in the singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking [1], with the conclusion that the initial singularity is not avoidable. These theorems rely on the strong energy condition and on certain assumptions about the global structure of spacetime. There are, however, three popular scenarios which circumvent these theorems: eternal inflation, a cyclic universe, and an “emergent” universe which exists for eternity as a static seed before expanding. Here we shall argue that none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”
beginning
“I. Introduction. Inflationary cosmological models [1, 2, 3] are generically eternal to the future [4, 5]. In these models, the Universe consists of post-inflationary, thermalized regions coexisting with still-inflating ones. In comoving coordinates the thermalized regions grow in time and are joined by new thermalized regions, so the comoving volume of the inflating regions vanishes as t → ∞. Nonetheless, the inflating regions expand so fast that their physical volume grows exponentially with time. As a result, there is never a time when the Universe is completely thermalized. In such spacetimes, it is natural to ask if the Universe could also be past-eternal. If it could, eternal inflation would provide a viable model of the Universe with no initial singularity. The Universe would never come into existence. It would simply exist.”
Conclude…………
“…….3 Did the universe have a beginning? At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.2 Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse. Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse.”
next....
In the ….disturbing implications of a cosmological constant
Basically these guys were saying the either dark matter doesn’t exist or else…..
The other “……possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own …”

But dark matter does exist……which was in one of the others I cited…..
“We propose a comprehensive theory of dark matter that explains the recent proliferation of unexpected observations in high-energy astrophysics. Cosmic ray spectra from ATIC and PAMELA require a WIMP with mass Mχ ∼ 500 − 800 GeV that annihilates into leptons at a level well above that expected from a thermal relic. Signals from WMAP and EGRET reinforce this interpretation. Limits on ¯p and π 0 -γ’s constrain the hadronic channels allowed for dark matter. Taken together, we argue these facts imply the presence of a new force in the dark sector, with a Compton wavelength m−1 φ > ∼ 1 GeV−1 . The long range allows a Sommerfeld enhancement to boost the annihilation cross section as required, without altering the weak-scale annihilation cross section during dark matter freeze-out in the early universe.”

That was very brief but then again you were moving the goal posts. Thus that was good enough for now. Because I don’t trust you won’t childishly move the goalposts again. So if you want to discuss one further in depth then let’s look at either of the “Vilenkin” papers I cited….bc I like Vilenkin. The other two fit better with fine tuning anyway.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf
or
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf

And how exactly does all that demonstrate that the cosmos/universe is fine tuned for human life or vindicate Kalam?

1) As stated the focus is the two Vilenkin papers thus not FTA.

2) What is p2 to the KCA? Why wouldn't the quotes above support p2? That's like asking how a visible burned out foundation and remains supports the idea that the house burned down?

 

[Wiploc]

1) I’m not saying you have to find theism plausible. Only to recognize and understand what it is and what it asserts.

a) I don't think that's relevant to the KCA. I think the effort would be a waste of our time.

Please allow me this brief attempt to clarify why it matters to the KCA what God we are arguing for.

Sure.

I did not offer the KCA to reason that your version of god exists.

I don't have a god. I don't believe in any gods.

Further (because I'm a strong atheist rather than a weak atheist) I believe that no gods exist.

The KCA is an argument that argues to a specific God,

It argues for a cause, not even a first cause, certainly not for a single divine cause.

WLC (William Lane Craig) agrees with me. (We don't agree on much.) The KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument), in his opinion, establishes a cause, and then other arguments go on from there to show the nature of that cause, which, as far as I can remember, matches the characteristics that you list: god is powerful, timeless, etc.

All the KCA even purports to show is that there was a cause. You don't need any particular god, or a god at all, to be that cause.

If the KCA was supportable, if the premises were probably true and the logic good, then you could be talking about that. You undertook to talk about that. Talking about that is why I'm here.

But you won't do it. You want to teach me about the god of the philosophers instead.

I decline your offer. First, if I tried to take you up on that, you would probably talk about something else instead. Second, there are supposed to be about 4000 gods, none of which interest me. I don't believe in them. They hold no significance to me. Growing up in Kansas, I got far more information than I wanted about Christian gods.

But I like logic. If you wanted to talk about the logic of the KCA, we could do that.

that I have overtly and repeatedly characterized for you. The one that I’ve been calling the God of theism. (aka the God of the philosophers, the God of classic theism)

Yeah, I don't know about that. I don't want to know about that.

It feels to me like -- and I'm not attributing motive to you, just telling you about my frustration -- you keep bringing up your religion in order to avoid talking about the KCA. It feels like bait and switch, like maybe you never intended to talk about the KCA but rather intended to use the KCA thing as a way to get me interested in your old god.

You have a different idea about the God of theism.

My view: The gods of theists are the gods of theism.

Thus the conflict. Hence our back and forth reasoning to address the conflict. The God I presented the KCA to support is not in conflict with the KCA.

The conflict, as I understand it, is that I want to talk about the KCA and you don't.

What would it take? I can stipulate that you believe in your god or gods. I can stipulate that you think your god or gods don't conflict with the KCA.

Would that help? What would it take to get you to actually talk about the KCA?

The KCA argues from the universe’s deduced cause to a God that is transcendent, supernatural, timeless sans creation, immaterial, spaceless, nonphysical, powerful, intelligent and personal creator.

P1: Things that begin have causes.
P2: The universe (or a part of it which doesn't include gods) began.
C: Therefore, that part of the universe had a cause.

That's the KCA. That's the whole of it. There is no mention of transcendence etc. To talk about that stuff is to change the subject.

Those are different arguments. And, if I understand you, you can't get to those arguments until you've shown that the KCA works. They follow the KCA. The KCA comes first.

So why aren't you willing to talk about the KCA? If you can't support the KCA, you'll never get to the rest of your arguments.

And it not conflict as it is with your god.

I don't have a god. I don't believe in any gods. I believe there are no gods.

More to the point, I believe there are no good arguments for believing in gods.

The KCA comes to mind. I think it's indefensible. Would you like to talk about the KCA?

If you want the argument to reason to some other god then the KCA would not apply. Heck….. I don’t believe in your god either.

I don't understand that. I'm having trouble parsing it. Do you suggest that my objection to the KCA is related to some particular gods? I repudiate that.

My position is not that the KCA doesn't work for some particular category of gods. My position is that the KCA doesn't work at all.

So we began our discussion in the context of me providing evidence and reasoning for why MY God exists.

Your god doesn't interest me.

I began that in the form of the KCA.

The KCA does interest me. Let's talk about that.

But
That was where we didn’t realize that we missed each other. Just what God I was saying existed and you were saying I needed to defend.

You don't need to defend a god. You could talk about the KCA.

You had a different god in mind then I did.

No.

We thought we were talking about the same God but we were not. I’m not trying to defend your god with the KCA, because I do not believe that your god exists.

So maybe we could put "my" god aside and talk about the KCA.

I stipulate that the god you attribute to me does not exist.

Since we've agreed on that, maybe we can go on to some other subject, like for instance the KCA.

You asked me to defend my God,

No. I don't give fig for that topic.

You have insisted on teaching me about your god as if the alternative (talking about the KCA) is unpalatable.

but you are unwilling to let me do that.

Defend the KCA. I don't care about your god.

You are insisting I must argue for a your god a god that begins to exist.

Jumping Jehoshaphat!

We agreed on a definition of "begin." Then you described a god which, according to our agreed definition, begins.

You are supposed to see that you contradicted yourself, and so backpedal. You should offer an alternative definition of "begin." I will happily stipulate to your definition.

Then I'll point out that, according to your new definition, it isn't just your gods that don't begin. It's everything. Nothing begins.

Then you try to use one definition to show that your god doesn't begin, but you'll switch to the other definition to show that other things do begin. So then I'll point out that you are equivocating, changing the definition of "begin" between premise and conclusion, thus rendering the KCA invalid.

I further point out that the KCA requires this equivocation in order to even seem plausible. Equivocation is the heart of the KCA.

Then you offer a new definition of "begin," and I agree to that, and we go around again, any number of times, but always winding up back at the same place.

-

That's the traditional way of discussing the KCA, but you won't even start.

I never asked you to defend a begun god, or any god. I don't care about any specific god. I did point out that you contradict yourself when you call your god unbegun while defining "begin" in a way that makes your god begun. This was not an invitation to discuss old Greek gods; it was an invitation to talk about the KCA.

Your insistence of this seems based upon your conception that the eternal is limited to time.

You've explained that you don't mean that. That's not what "eternal" means in your argument.

You won't say what it does mean, but we are past the point where I think you meant that your gods existed before time.

Thus god began to exist. That is your view of things. And hence the lengthy discussion.

The lengthy discussion is because you want to talk about some particular god that people "have always agreed with."

I have provided reasoning and recognized definition that demonstrates that time is a subset of the eternal, because time began to exist and thus its eternal cause had to be timeless.

I don't agree with any of that.

That is the God that I provided the KCA as argument for. The KCA does not argue to a god that begins to exist. It would be flat out unreasonable to do so.

We wouldn't want to be unreasonable.

If I stipulate that your god is unbegun, is it still okay for me to point out that -- according to our agreed definition of "begin" -- your god began?

So I admit the KCA cannot defend your version of the god.

I don't have a version of god.

But
The KCA is evidence and reasoning that the God (The God of the philosophers, classical theism) exists.

Your thoughts?

If you think the KCA is able to survive scrutiny, why don't we talk about the KCA?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's why I see religion as a legacy behavior from a time when our species was near universally bipolar. Ironically, such a condition would have given our species a tremendous survival advantage, unlike presently where we live in much larger social groups. People who are very religious don't see themselves as the problem they ostensibly are trying to fix.

I've actually switched my position on this. I no longer see religion as something ancient that used to work. I think it still works. And is necessary for the civilised world. The problem is science and scientism. Today we live in well educated highly scientifically minded society. At some point in history (300 - 150 years ago) we stopped treating religious language as art and poetry and started treating it as a scientific textbook. It's a sciencefication of religion. That's what creationism/ID is about. It's dumb.

I see the religious mindset, as just that. It's a mindset. If we have that mindset we focus less on bullshit in life and more on the stuff that is important, ie family, friendships and having good relations with the people in your life. A major point of religion is to build community. And working hard and not whining so much. Being grateful for what we got. To stop being bitter about the people who have hurt us in the past.

Nobody knows the meaning of life. It's an unsovable problem. Who created all this? Who knows? And why? Who knows? Spending time on those questions is a waste of time. You have a job to do. Do that instead. Focus on feeding your family. That's why religon makes these blanket statements of what to believe (ie myth). I think the Bible is giving us a nod and a wink. The authors of it knew it's not litterally true. I mean... God is "ineffable". It's mentioned many times. That means Christians aren't supposed to take this so seriously. That's the point IMHO. Not to mention all the logical paradoxes of the Christian God concept. If the Biblical authors could read and write, they must have gone to school around 50 BC and if they did they must have known Greek philosophy forwards and backwards. They knew the things they were writing about God made no sense. And that's the point. It's a belief in the belief of God. Not an actual belief in God. God is a psychological tool with with to keep communities together. And I think they knew it while writing it.

I suspect most Christians were smarter about their faith 2000 years ago than they are today. They would have been. It was a pagan world and pagan theology is more sophisticated than Christian theology. The near total domination of Christianity for thousands of years made it stupid. And the near total domination of the scientific thinking of today made Christianity even more stupid. But Christianity isn't stupid. I think it's really clever. But we need to take it for what it is.

No, God doesn't really exist. If it did it would be effable. Existence assumes we can describe it and define it. If we can't define it then it doesn't exist. But that's not what religion is about. It's not science. So it's not a problem for religion.

Scientific thinking doesn't require that I give up my ability to pretend. Religion is a kind of rudimentary scientific process in that we try to understand phenomena through this religious lens. But then along comes scientific skills and we understand it just fine without all the religious woo.

But my imagination is still sound, my ability to get outside that scientific box has not been compromised. Science is actually far more complex and complicated in how it works, requiring far more thought, at least if one is curious about how that apple arrived on their counter or why our bodies are 70% water and break so easily.

I don't agree. Religion isn't early science. I never found Dawkins argument about religion being bad science, particularly convincing. Science is about understanding. Religion isn't. Religious belief is more about creating meaning. You take the facts you know, add some myth and tie it up into an overarching story that motivates you to get out of bed in the morning. God is "God of the gaps". I even reject Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.

Of course science is more complex. Religion is simple. That's the point. People might think religion is complex because it's mysterious. But that's also the point. There's nothing to the religious mysteries. There's nothing to work out. There's nothing behind the curtain. Like the David Lynch movies. He doesn't even know what he meant by his movies. You are supposed to project onto them. They're supposed to inspire you to make up your own explanation. But to keep doing it. To find deeper and deeper layers. But those layers aren't in the films. They were always only in you. Religion works the same way. It's not complex. It's incredibly simple. But genius, and genuinely profound.

Religion can't build an airplane. But it can get you onto one if you are afraid of flying.

 

[abaddon]

I don't agree. Religion isn't early science. I never found Dawkins argument about religion being bad science, particularly convincing. Science is about understanding. Religion isn't. Religious belief is more about creating meaning. You take the facts you know, add some myth and tie it up into an overarching story that motivates you to get out of bed in the morning. God is "God of the gaps". I even reject Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.

Of course science is more complex. Religion is simple. That's the point. People might think religion is complex because it's mysterious. But that's also the point. There's nothing to the religious mysteries. There's nothing to work out. There's nothing behind the curtain. Like the David Lynch movies. He doesn't even know what he meant by his movies. You are supposed to project onto them. They're supposed to inspire you to make up your own explanation. But to keep doing it. To find deeper and deeper layers. But those layers aren't in the films. They were always only in you. Religion works the same way. It's not complex. It's incredibly simple. But genius, and genuinely profound.

Religion can't build an airplane. But it can get you onto one if you are afraid of flying.

Are you trying to describe the traditional religions, or a postmodern religion like Syntheism?

Maybe you're prescribing what moderns 'should' do with religion: they 'should' use it for meaning-making and self-help instead of treating it like science. Ok... interesting POV. But what you're saying is not descriptive of traditional religions. It takes the values developed only recently to see things like you're seeing them - to have psychologized mythology, for example.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't agree. Religion isn't early science. I never found Dawkins argument about religion being bad science, particularly convincing. Science is about understanding. Religion isn't. Religious belief is more about creating meaning. You take the facts you know, add some myth and tie it up into an overarching story that motivates you to get out of bed in the morning. God is "God of the gaps". I even reject Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.

Of course science is more complex. Religion is simple. That's the point. People might think religion is complex because it's mysterious. But that's also the point. There's nothing to the religious mysteries. There's nothing to work out. There's nothing behind the curtain. Like the David Lynch movies. He doesn't even know what he meant by his movies. You are supposed to project onto them. They're supposed to inspire you to make up your own explanation. But to keep doing it. To find deeper and deeper layers. But those layers aren't in the films. They were always only in you. Religion works the same way. It's not complex. It's incredibly simple. But genius, and genuinely profound.

Religion can't build an airplane. But it can get you onto one if you are afraid of flying.

Are you trying to describe the traditional religions, or a postmodern religion like Syntheism?

Maybe you're prescribing what moderns 'should' do with religion: they 'should' use it for meaning-making and self-help instead of treating it like science. Ok... interesting POV. But what you're saying is not descriptive of traditional religions. It takes the values developed only recently to see things like you're seeing them - to have psychologized mythology, for example.

The average religious person doesn't have to understand it. Just as you don't need to understand the intricacies of comedy writing to laugh at a funny film. You don't need to be a composer to enjoy music. It takes specialised interest to figure out why things are working. It also robs it of some of it's magic. Just like analysing humour kills to the joke, so does analysing the psychological engine behind religious mysticism kill the mystery and some of the sense of wonder.

When I got into Syntheism I started studying all kinds of religions. Especially paganism. A huge problem with discussing religion in the west is that we tend to use Christianity as a template for all religion. That's certainly true on this forum. But Christianity is weird. It's also overly simplistic. It's not a sophisticated religion. I'm sure that's why it's spread so fast. Islam is the same, as far as simplicity is concerned. The simplest (and also dumbest) form of Christianity is protestantism and litteral fundamentalism. These guys haven't got the memo. Which is why it's so painful to watch New Atheist attack religion. When Richard Dawkins attacked religion in the God Delusion he is only going after the dumbest incarnation of religion. Which I suspect is the form of atheistic criticism which informs your comment? Yes, a lot of religious people do have stupid forms of religion. And that's a shame.

No, I don't think it's postmodern religion. I think this is pre-christian "traditional" religion. The intellectual pagans had no problems discussing their faith in a quite detached manner. Same goes for Hindus or Buddhists today. They all see the strings on the puppet and can talk about it. And early Christianity was part of the pagan tradition of thought, which is reflected in the writings of early Christians. The dumbing down of Christianity was a gradual process.

They didn't use words as "projection". That's modern psychological language. They said the same thing in other words. There's countless examples. It's all over Christianity and all other religious sacred texts. For example:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+13:5&version=KJ21

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The KCA is an argument that argues to a specific God, that I have overtly and repeatedly characterized for you. The one that I’ve been calling the God of theism.

But it isn't the "God of theism", it is the God of the Exception to the Rule. The KCA creates an unsubstantiated rule, and breaks it with its own conclusion... the God of The Exception to the Rule.

 

[Wiploc]

The KCA is an argument that argues to a specific God, that I have overtly and repeatedly characterized for you. The one that I’ve been calling the God of theism.

But it isn't the "God of theism", it is the God of the Exception to the Rule. The KCA creates an unsubstantiated rule, and breaks it with its own conclusion... the God of The Exception to the Rule.

Which is why he shouldn't talk about the "universal rule of cause and effect." He should talk about something like the "nearly universal law of cause and effect with a single exception approved by remez."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The KCA is an argument that argues to a specific God, that I have overtly and repeatedly characterized for you. The one that I’ve been calling the God of theism.

But it isn't the "God of theism", it is the God of the Exception to the Rule. The KCA creates an unsubstantiated rule, and breaks it with its own conclusion... the God of The Exception to the Rule.

Which is why he shouldn't talk about the "universal rule of cause and effect." He should talk about something like the "nearly universal law of cause and effect with a single exception approved by remez."

I spoke in another thread about this contradiction, how a person observes that everything needs a cause and then concludes that not everything needs a cause. Reflecting on all the experiences I've had and observations I've made over a lifetime the only things that didn't need a cause were things magical. Remez simply still believes in magic.

We can all still use magic, even as adults, and we do when we watch a movie that contains impossible events. We enjoy the movie. Maybe it has something to do with our mirror neurons in that we identify and empathize as humans and so experience the "magic" depicted on the screen. But we know it is a depiction, not actual, we can't reproduce it in labs. Call it our Hollywood gene that the ancient Greeks seem to have first brought to our attention.

I remember experiencing magic as a kid, a kind of mania, and still have my moments, but know it's brain chemistry, not spooky forces or an invisible man in the sky waiting to abduct me when I die. My brain has grown up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I will add, the whole 'origin' of the universe question has no real satisfying answer. The idea existence is a thing at all makes no sense. But god doesn't fix that... as it just pushes the not making sense to god, instead of the universe.

KCA: Haw haw! You can't explain the origin of the universe, therefore a god exists.
Atheist: Where did your god come from?
KCA: He is eternal. *mic drop*

 

[Wiploc]

I will add, the whole 'origin' of the universe question has no real satisfying answer. The idea existence is a thing at all makes no sense. But god doesn't fix that... as it just pushes the not making sense to god, instead of the universe.

I'm reminded of the theory of panspermia. Somebody doesn't see how life could have started on earth, and so she decides it must have come from somewhere else and been brought here (on the good ship Panspermi Valdez?).

That doesn't answer the question of how life began, but it pushes the unanswered question farther away, which, for some people, is comforting.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I will add, the whole 'origin' of the universe question has no real satisfying answer. The idea existence is a thing at all makes no sense. But god doesn't fix that... as it just pushes the not making sense to god, instead of the universe.

KCA: Haw haw! You can't explain the origin of the universe, therefore a god exists.
Atheist: Where did your god come from?
KCA: He is eternal. *mic drop*

It's an easy, comforting, uncomplicated resolution to a question. It's not surprising that Natural Selection would give it a nod considering it's historically unimportant in terms of human survival.

 

[James Brown]

Don't know if this issue has already been mentioned.

The declaration, "Every thing that has a beginning must have been caused by something else," sneaks in the assumption that the universe is just one big thing.

But is it? We find in other areas that an object that is the sum total of a collection of other objects does not necessarily have the same properties as the individual objects. Such as:

Every novel has an author. (True)
Literature is the total collection of all novels. (True)
Therefore, Literature has an author. (False)

Every living human has a brain. (True)
Humanity is the sum total of all humans (True)
Therefore, Humanity has a brain. (False)

It seems to me that the same mistake may be made in cosmology. The universe is not a thing, it is the sum collection of all things. Which would lead us to:

Every thing in the universe has a beginning (for a certain definition of beginning. Perhaps the significant change from a prior state). (True)
The Universe is the sum total of all things. (True)
Therefore, the Universe had a beginning. (False)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Don't know if this issue has already been mentioned.

The declaration, "Every thing that has a beginning must have been caused by something else," sneaks in the assumption that the universe is just one big thing.

But is it? We find in other areas that an object that is the sum total of a collection of other objects does not necessarily have the same properties as the individual objects. Such as:

Every novel has an author. (True)
Literature is the total collection of all novels. (True)
Therefore, Literature has an author. (False)

Every living human has a brain. (True)
Humanity is the sum total of all humans (True)
Therefore, Humanity has a brain. (False)

It seems to me that the same mistake may be made in cosmology. The universe is not a thing, it is the sum collection of all things. Which would lead us to:

Every thing in the universe has a beginning (for a certain definition of beginning. Perhaps the significant change from a prior state). (True)
The Universe is the sum total of all things. (True)
Therefore, the Universe had a beginning. (False)

And we don't know what the universe is. We call it "everything" but we don't know if it is "everything." It could be an infinitesimally small part of something else, we'd be like a spider in the jungle thinking our tiny bunch of leaves is everything only because it's everything we can see and sense. Only in the past several generations have we become aware that other galaxies even exist. Humankind didn't know it lived on a planet not so long ago.

It's fascinating that some people believe they can conceive of there not being anything, no planet, no spiders, no bunch of leaves, no jungle, no stars, no galaxies, no universe, no cosmos, ever, when no such observation could be more erroneous. You'd think a person would at the very minimum accept the somethingness that is everywhere as a brute fact of nature. Strange how that works.

 

[Wiploc]

And we don't know what the universe is. We call it "everything" but we don't know if it is "everything."

We don't know what everything is, but we know that everything is everything. We may not know what all is in the universe, but we know that the universe is, by definition, everything that exists.

It could be an infinitesimally small part of something else,

The known universe may be.

 

[remez]

Wiploc,

You don’t get to have it both ways……You don’t get to reason that god begun to exist as an objection to p1 and THEN turn around and shut me down from responding to that objection……. by reasoning that the KCA doesn’t say anything about God therefore I'm off topic. Your objection was about God in the first place. What gives?
These three posts………

The KCA argues from the universe’s deduced cause to a God that is transcendent, supernatural, timeless sans creation, immaterial, spaceless, nonphysical, powerful, intelligent and personal creator.

P1: Things that begin have causes.
P2: The universe (or a part of it which doesn't include gods) began.
C: Therefore, that part of the universe had a cause.

That's the KCA. That's the whole of it. There is no mention of transcendence etc. To talk about that stuff is to change the subject.

And …..

It argues for a cause, not even a first cause, certainly not for a single divine cause.

And…………..

All the KCA even purports to show is that there was a cause. You don't need any particular god, or a god at all, to be that cause.

………....all seem to indicate that you don’t have a full understanding of the argument. It seems to me that you think the argument is just those three lines……p1, p2, and c…..That there is no God in sight. And that is your reasoning to say I’m not on subject.

The argument does not end at ‘the universe has a cause”. We examine the universe forensically to determine the properties that the cause of the universe must have and those properties match the classical theistic God. I have presented this several times now.
So ……..

Summary and Conclusion
In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

That was from WLC.
Also
From WLC himself….the whole thing in video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N80AjfHTvQY ..... but the last 4 mins cover the conclusion for the existence of the theistic God.

And a convenient pic for summary........


So your notion that this has nothing to do with God is of base. I have been defending the KCA at every step.

Again……You don’t get to have it both ways……You don’t get to reason that god begun to exist as an objection to the KCA and then shut me down from responding that objection by then reasoning that the KCA doesn’t say anything about God.

If you don’t think this argument has anything to do with God
Then…
Why did you raise the objection that god began to exist to oppose p1?
Because…..
God is not even in the KCA according to you.
Thus
Your objection about God beginning in p1 fails….. by its own reasoning that god is not in the KCA, thus you really have no objection.
And thus…
The KCA remains unaffected by your objection that God must have begun to exist.

 

[remez]

The KCA is an argument that argues to a specific God, that I have overtly and repeatedly characterized for you. The one that I’ve been calling the God of theism.

But it isn't the "God of theism", it is the God of the Exception to the Rule. The KCA creates an unsubstantiated rule, and breaks it with its own conclusion... the God of The Exception to the Rule.

Which is why he shouldn't talk about the "universal rule of cause and effect." He should talk about something like the "nearly universal law of cause and effect with a single exception approved by remez."

I spoke in another thread about this contradiction, how a person observes that everything needs a cause and then concludes that not everything needs a cause.

That is not p1...... everything has a cause.

P1 everything that “BEGINS” to exist has a cause.

If the universe is eternal (like it was perceived to be for thousands of years) it would have no cause. The universe just is or just was. It always existed. It was the first cause. So 150 years ago most believed the universe was an exception to p1 as well as God. It’s only now that you folks claim that p1 is a carve out for God only. It doesn’t hold water.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But it isn't the "God of theism", it is the God of the Exception to the Rule. The KCA creates an unsubstantiated rule, and breaks it with its own conclusion... the God of The Exception to the Rule.

Which is why he shouldn't talk about the "universal rule of cause and effect." He should talk about something like the "nearly universal law of cause and effect with a single exception approved by remez."

I spoke in another thread about this contradiction, how a person observes that everything needs a cause and then concludes that not everything needs a cause.

That is not p1...... everything has a cause.

P1 everything that “BEGINS” to exist has a cause.

If the universe is eternal (like it was perceived to be for thousands of years) it would have no cause. The universe just is or just was. It always existed. It was the first cause. So 150 years ago most believed the universe was an exception to p1 as well as God. It’s only now that you folks claim that p1 is a carve out for God only. It doesn’t hold water.

None of that addresses The Exception of the Rule Argument.