Talk:Kalam cosmological argument/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Craig?

Why is "William Lane Craig" (apparently so well know that until I complained he was just called "Craig") used so extensively as an authority for this argument? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Because, so far as I understand it, he uses this argument more often than anyone else in debate. Sometimes he sounds like a broken record! See: http://www.amazon.com/Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-William-Craig/dp/157910438X Eluusive (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And it's intersting that the "Craig-broken-record" still wasn't refuted. But in fact it's about this that I came here to talk... Its my eyes, or this article was written by atheist? For it allways gives the last word in theyr hands while, for what I already saw, Craig always has answers for theyr critics, and not all of them (if none of them) were refuted. If someone who is aware of the situation of the argument would read this article, probably he would end reading it as the kalam is already defeated, while this is not true.

Isn't there any theist to write more answers to the atheists points?

Re: William. Craig wrote a book called "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" back in the late 70's. He expanded on the works of several philosophers, and brought the argument to its current form. It's very fair to say he is not only an authority, but the authority. (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.176.146 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Momergil (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Kalem Argument has been refuted, if the universe must have a cause to exist and that cause is somehow God.What is Gods cause to exist then?211.30.42.24 (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

God does not have a cause. The argument shows that everything that began to exist has a cause. God did not begin to exist. Therefore, God is not required to have a cause. Also, the subset of the argument, about the impossibility of an actual infinite regression of events does not apply to God either. God is not an actual infinite regression of events. And eternal entity is theoretically possible. Something that creates itself, or is an infinite regression of events is not possible. Stephen Bolin^talk 03:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"God did not begin to exist"- that begs the question that a god exists, which is precisely the conclusion that the argument attempts to support. Not to mention that WLC's premises specifically deny the existence of a god: if god did not "begin" to exist, that logically means that god existed forever. That is impossible, according to WLC, since an actual infinite cannot exist. This would leave god with the property of having existed before the chance to exist came about (time). Not only that, without time there would be no opportunity to change or cause anything, since cause necessitates the existence of time. Thus, anything that "existed" before time would be totally impotent, and unable to create anything by definition. That of course ignores the concept that existence itself causes time, which therefore means that the existence of time was caused by the existence of this "god". So that would be the "beginning" of the existence of god, which contradicts the arguments made. An infinite regress, some might say. 137.111.13.167 (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As a principle the argument only states that there must be a cause for the existence of something (the universe). The problem with WLC's angle is that existence of something creates time. To "begin" relates to time. Time only exists as a relation to matter/energy. Therefore "beginning" is existence.

Well, to my understanding the argument is supposed to be a reductio, right? It could be written as proceeding from "suppose God did not exist", and then it attempts to establish that the universe would be impossible. Anything that actually exists is possible relative to the actual world. Hence God exists. So it doesn't beg the question. But it uses some pretty speculative and implausible points to support the various subarguments that drive the argument to goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.4.251 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The preceding commenter had begged the question, which is why I quoted it.137.111.13.167 (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ref

http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/axn032?ijkey=kFGs4UhaMvrxZZ0&keytype=ref

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to below, no edits made yet

The person below stated "Also there are objections that between two points in space there has to be another point." However, quantum mechanics have proposed that there is a certain unit that is the smallest unit possible, which would prove that it is possible to find two points with no point between them, that movement is possible (Zeno was wrong!) and that infinite qualities are theoretically possible. I'm not saying that I disagree with the person below, I'm saying that his theory has been contradicted by quantum physicists. Also, the quantum theory agrees with observational evidence, and the other theory doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warr40 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's generally convention to reply below a comment you're responding to, rather than starting a new section. Also, please sign your posts by placing ~~~~ after your reply, so we know who we're talking to. Lastly, please source the claim that quantum mechanics proposes "the smallest unit possible". I'm not aware of any such claim. Lastly, and most importantly, what does this have to do with the article? Jess ^talk _cs 20:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the status of the neutrality dispute?

Just wondering... It seems not-neutral to me. Theowarner (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples?? It reads factually. Are you concerned about due and undue weight or what? If anything, it's too lenient on the argument, which is not considered sound by the majority of philosophers (though I don't have the appropriate citation, I believe less than 5% find it convincing).Obamafan70 (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

[...]"Kant rejects any cosmological proof on the grounds that it is nothing more than an ontological proof in disguise. He argued that any necessary object’s essence must involve existence, hence reason alone can define such a being, and the argument becomes quite similar to the ontological one in form, devoid of any empirical premises. Ref: Cassirer, Ernst, "Kant’s Life and thought", New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981

This is the reason that most of modern philosophers almost unanimously reject the cosmological argument as a legitimate proof for the existence of God. Efiiamagus (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete the entire criticism section?

I tried but it was reverted. Yeah. But, still. It needs to be completely hacked to shreads. For an argument like Kalam, one little paragraph is all it needs for criticisms. Saying: there are criticism. Here are some people who made them. And half a sentence about the topic of the criticism. That's all. Theowarner (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Note: I haven't actually read through the entire article since early June (when I added a npov template -- so clearly I was a big fan of it then...) But it does seem that there was some reasonable content in those sections before they were removed. Considering the amount of exposure WLC has gained for the argument, I do think it's reasonable to list some of the basic objections to it in media. The previous version was, perhaps, a bit excessive. But, for example, if we are to say "Victor Stenger has pointed out that quantum mechanics falsifies the first postulate of the argument", it seems only appropriate that we summarize what about quantum mechanics falsifies it. Nothing too in-depth is needed here, but specifying that "Quantum mechanics postulates that these events happen in nature continuously" is much better than just linking the reader to Quantum mechanics for them to figure out the connection on their own.

I did not revert the deleted sections, though I strongly considered it. I'm not familiar enough with the actual content to say whether they definitively belong. But, I do think at least some of them are warranted, even if they should be dramatically condensed. After all, we do want this article to be comprehensive -- it would be a shame to bring it back to stub status.

Jess

_talk
edits

16:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that. My goal here is move the quality content back onto the page. But a good 80% of criticisms that where there read like a back and forth. Theowarner (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally, philisophical arguments are described along with criticism of the argument. In this case, the criticism is described, but not very well, and some of the criticism isn't very accurate scientifically. I can go into further detail if someone is interested. 72.48.80.83 (talk) Justin —Preceding undated comment added 02:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC).

Instead of the criticism, just add the refutation that invalidates the whole argument

The logic used in the KCA (the reasoning that the past sequence of elapsed time cannot be infinite) is simply invalid, as his conclusion (the world needed a beginning in time) is dropped in as an assumption (since, he reasons from the point that he could 'start' somewhere at the timeline for counting the sequence of time since then, and then argues that such a series can never yield an infinitude, which is true but by use of the smuggled in premise that time did have a beginning, since else, how could he have been starting the count in the first place?), which he first needed to proof. So the argument is circular (he uses as a premise the thing he needs to proof). In reality, assuming that time did not begin (the beginning of time itself is already self contradicting in definition 'contradication in termio' since 'to begin' already assumes that there is time), you would not be able to start the counting of time to begin with (wherever you start the count on the past time line, this is always a finite amount of time in the past, but as time does not start somewhere, this whole assumption that you can arbitrarily start somewhere is false), thus invalidating the whole argument.

For the above, see for example the refutation of a similar argument made by Duhring and its refutation in the book Anti-Duhring by Friedrich Engels, Time and Space.

Second, there is nothing in the big bang theory that says or claims that time, the universe, had a begin, since the big bang theory is not about the creation of the universe, but about it's development, and merely says that in earlier (cosmological) epochs, the universe was denser, hotter and smaller.

The most relevant theory, the cosmological inflation theory, which in some variants can explain that time is indeed eternal (see for example Andrei Linden: eternal (chaotic) inflation, self-reproducing universe, past eternal inflation). Inflationary theory has come about a fully grown theory of it's own that explains facts about the big bang that in the BBT itself could not be explained (e.g. why the cosmos is so homogeneous and almost perfectly flat, why regions of the cosmos which could not be in thermal contact with each other, still have the same temperature, etc.). Experimentally the CMB data confirms the predictions of inflationary theory, and forms the reason why it is the still not beaten and preferred explanation for the big bang.

Heusdens (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I skimmed through your comment, so forgive me if I'm off-base... but it seems to fall under WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTHESIS. If there's a change you'd like to make to the article, I'd welcome it, but first we'd need reliable sources to back up the change. Can you dredge up some relevant citations for all that, and then propose specific changes to the article content?

Jess

_talk
edits

03:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There is actually a better refutation of the KCA that was posted on TheologyWeb forums http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=81583

The KCA contains the logical fallacy equivocation. The phrase "begins to exist" is employed with two different meanings.

In the first premise, this refers to macro object. You began to exist when you were born. Your car began to exist when it was built, etc. Material object formed by the rearrangement of matter and energy.

In the second premise does not refer to the rearrangement of matter and energy but the creation of matter and energy itself.]

Simple illustration: say you have a bucket of Legos. This represents the universe and the Legos are the constituent components of matter. Take the Legos and build something, such as a little car. The little car "begins to exist" when you build it out of Legos. So in this illustration, "beginning to exists" means to build it out of Legos.

The Legos are not built out of Legos. How the Legos themselves "begin to exist" is a different process than "building out of Legos." If the KCA were written for this illustration, it would read like this:

      1. Whatever is built out of Legos has a cause.
      2. The Legos are built out of Legos.
      3. Therefore, the Legos has a cause.

I would actually like to add this to the criticism portion of the page as it does show the fatal flaw in the KCA, but that section has problems already and since this is referencing a forum post on the internet, I'm not sure how to give proper reference and credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.226.71 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Craig revived it? Or Craig argues it?

I would like: Its most vocal contemporary proponent is William Lane Craig. I would not like: It has been revived in recent years most predominantly in the works of Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.

I believe that the latter sentence includes the suggestion that Kalam is both an effective and important argument. It's alive, so to speak. I would contend that Craig merely argues it. I don't make a judgement about how good he is at arguing it. Or the state of the argument today.

Also, I am removing the idea of "Christian" and "Philosopher." His religion is not relevant. And, although Craig has a PhD in philosopher, he is often regarded as an apologist more than a philosopher. And, I'm eager to avoid that lengthy debate here. I might be simpler to just call by name. And, at the same time, I also feel that Craig's status as a philosopher somehow legitimizes the argument in a way that his name does not. Theowarner (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing Craig's credentials for reasons of bias (above)

Why would you remove the VERY relevant fact that he is a philosopher (Not as some casual hobby, he has PHD in philosophy.) The fact that you "feel" that Craig's status as a philosopher somehow legitimizes the argument" is your own problem, not the article's problem. In this article it it is relevant to state that he is a philosopher, it appears as though you are simply trying to remove any terms you deem as potentially casting the argument in a positive light. How is it relevant to just state his NAME? That makes it look ridiculous, like it's just referring to some random proponent from the "West" with no credentials.. It makes no sense unless you add "philosopher". You need to simply state the relevant facts and let the reader decide whether he thinks the word "philosopher" makes the argument any more valid or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psatwth (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable past proponents of the KCA.

User:69.181.249.92. Hello. Can you please give a reason as to why it was reverted? There is no challenge to the article it is just an expansion in the topic of the KCA and a NPOV contribution. I see no reason why other past proponents of the KCA should not be included in the article.

Throughout history there have been many distinguished proponents of the KCA: John Philoponus, Al-Kindi, Saadia Gaon, Al-Ghazali, and St. Bonaventure. Its most vocal contemporary proponent is William Lane Craig.

Thanks.Efiiamagus (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would guess it's due to the phrasing, not the content itself. I'd personally like to see 2 changes made to your proposal. 1) Remove "distinguished", as we don't want to be making judgements about these men ourselves, and should be more accurately reflecting reliable sources impartially. 2) Remove the (KCA) bit, as it's unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Just use "the argument" or something similar instead. Jess_talk|_edits 16:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you've already added it back in. I've changed the content per my suggestions above. If it's still contentious then surely 69.181 will revert it with an edit summary. Jess_talk|_edits 16:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! Yes the "distinguished" part, I was not comfortable with, but that was the original quotation so I did not change it. But we can do away with it. :) I personally don't like such terms. Acronyms (a form of abbreviations) are permitted when they are introduced clearly and the meaning is apparent(see:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) - Acronym usage in article body). Nevertheless, I do agree it looks better using the term "argument"; instead of the acronym. Thanks for the edit! Efiiamagus (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Expert request

I took this article as a challenge since it had a tag for clean up dated October 2009. I have added information and sources, but I am no expert in the subject. Maybe an association with the Phylosophy and Islam projects will be apropiate. Thank you. Efiiamagus (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm hardly an expert either. But, I'm a little concerned by the "discussion" section. First, I'm not sure that a "discussion" section is even appropriate. And, second, while there is plenty of content that is appropriate to an encyclopedia of philosophy, it hardly seems appropriate here. Also, it contains many statements that I can't substantiate and certainly can't accept as true on a purely philosophical level. Do you want to hack away at it, Efiiamangus? Or should I? Theowarner (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hack away. I do find some of the statements, at least too "academic" or "scholarly". I added the discussion session (as there was already one with the contemporary argument) for the classical argument to give leverage to the whole "one source" of the article, using just the KCA book by WLC. So please do... edit, change, remove, rephrase as you see fit... that is what this is all about... :) Efiiamagus (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ghazali on Aquinas

Even though the point has been made, many times before, and that the influence of Islamic philosophy on Aquinas is undeniable. I removed the quote on this, since Aquinas form of the cosmological argument is not the Kalam form. The scope of the section is to illustrate the roots of the KCA in the Classical form of the argument (even though Ghazali rejected the Aristotelian form of the argument). So if Aquinas was or wasn't influenced by Ghazali in this particular matter is beyond the scope of the article. Hence the neutral voice in the sentence. Efiiamagus (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"STEP FOUR". Is that Craig, or is it Classical?

The section on Craig has just been amended to remove Step 4 of his argument.The reasons for removing it haven't been made clear, and it would be nice if the editor could explain his reasons here.

In the meantime, I have found another anomaly; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also summarizes (or possibly quotes) Craig's argument in 4 steps:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#4

"A second type of cosmological argument, contending for a first or beginning cause of the universe, has a venerable history, especially in the Islamic tradition. Although it had numerous defenders through the centuries, it received new life in the recent voluminous writings of William Lane Craig. Craig formulates the kalām cosmological argument this way (in Craig and Smith 1993, chap. 1):

• Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
• The universe began to exist.
• Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
• Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)"

Those last words, verbatim, are Step 4 of the CLASSICAL argument in the current Article!!!

That makes no sense at all.

IF the Stanford cite is correct, we have the ridiculous situation of Craig's Step 4 deleted from his section, and yet appearing in the Classical definition, unattributed.

I'd love to help sort this out, but I don't have any source materials. I'm just raising the absurdity of how things stand.

Gnu Ordure (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2