Good to see you posting again, the forum isn't the same without you. Miss the old days when every thread was compelling.

The way the Theist is using "began" is misleading. There is no evidence that "all things" have a beginning. By "all things" I mean "everything" not every thing. The universe in its current state has a beginning but there is nothing to suggest that the start of "everything" has ever happened.

I reject premise 2 because it is just an assertion without evidence. I could replace the Universe with God in that context and use it as an argument God has a creator.


Also

Is just an argument from ignorance. Even if I just give you premises 1-3 i can reject premise four because it relies on ignorance.

Also, for the sake of clarity. Premise 2 is not necessarily false, I just don't see how you can demonstrate it to be true. We do not know anything before the Big Bang, and for all we know the Big Bang could be a recurring phenomenon.

How is it misleading? I don't really get what you are saying here.

I'm curious, before you made this assertion, did you read the linked article or any of the essays to which it refers? For instance, here it says:

It then spends several paragraphs summarizing the evidence and arguments that Craig's uses to argue for premise 2. Maybe you've read all these arguments and dispensed with all of his evidence. But if not, your rejection of (2) on the grounds that it an assertion without evidence is unwarranted.

So? I'm not sure what argument

This doesn't work. If (1) and (2) are true and the argument is valid, then (3) is true regardless of the truth or falsity of (4).

Well, I wouldn't be as pessimistic as you about the ability of scientists to answer these questions, but fair enough. However, let's say someone did think that (2) was true. Would you then think that theism logically follows?

pan·the·ism

noun
1.
a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.

2.
rare
worship that admits or tolerates all gods.

Just for the ontological bedrock.

It is assuming the Universe in its current state is the only state the Universe has ever been and it is also assuming the Universe is everything. We don't know either to be true. Also, before the big bang it is believed there was something here, even if that something was just a very very very small point. So to say the big bang is the start of everything is misleading, it is the start of the EXPANSION of everything.



Nope, but I am talking to you now. Maybe you can summarize how we know that premise 2 is correct?



If I replace the universe with God, I can assert God had to be created. This is a problem for both of us.



This is not true. 1-3 can be true and 4 could one day be explained by natural causes. 4 relies on a gap in knowledge.

I'm not pessimistic. I believe we will likely answer this question one day.

Considering premise 4 still relies on a gap in knowledge no, I don't necessarily think it is "logical" to become a theist based on this argument. I can see why people would reach the conclusion though, I just don't think its justified here.

One other thing, I hate when people use analytic truths to prove synthetic propositions. That is also a big problem I have with this argument. Analytic truths are essentially just a way to determine if what we are saying is logically consistent. They can't be used in themselves to prove synthetic propositions. You need outside evidence to determine if a synthetic proposition is "likely" true.

Careful with the tautological assumptions. It weakens your main pillar.

Some Beings exist through their own justification.

Knowledge is appreciated through analysis, which of course precludes meandering such as atomism and his double down sisters.

A glaring example is an oft attempted to produce living beings through a gruel of amino acids and whatever, because of this intellectual belief( more often unknowingly) in synthesis which is an illusion, more of an enchantment.

Synthesis is admixed with desire which assumes a precondition to the establishment of this erstwhile knowledge. Baking bread is not a knowledge driven act (in our sense) but more of a metamorphosis due to the nature of the ingredients and not due to atoms or molecules.

An acid-base reaction speaks for itself and does not need the supposed clarifying aid of atoms and molecules. The human knowledge gatherer can only reach a semblance of truth by disporting one's self from the activities of nature in the sense of preconditions. Theories are not truths but can, in a way, aid in the progress of knowledge, facts are the issue.

Therefore the scientific methodology has credence in that the facts of an experiment cannot be gainsaid but the interpretation of said facts is subject to myriad illusions, an imprisonment in the atomistic age which is spread throughout our culture, from politics to religion and of course to science.

A glaring example, which i believe I've referred to in the past is Newton's belief which is carried within the souls of the western mind is that light , when it passes through a prism, is split into the 7 colors of the rainbow. In the projection on the wall can display the colors, but only if the cone of light is small , otherwise we get edges which color attached superior and inferior with no color in the middle. THERE IS NO NEED TO ASSUME THAT THE LIGHT IS BROKEN UP INTO THE COLORS . A real scientist will accept the findings and then proceed to clarify as to what exactly is happening. Newton was a good mathematician but a poor scientist.

This doesn't mean that one denies lasers and etc.. but the automobile and airplane were developed without the physicist's machinations or abstract atomism and likewise this technological event. Technology is not science, per se, as is evident.

Nature speaks as the external world with the internal world of Man also within the realm of a real scientific investigation , that of a supersensible science.

Back to the beginning it should be realized that synthesis and analysis are thought processes which are relegated to the internal world of Man the realm of thinking which is a sensory process of the supersensible.

" In thinking I experience myself united with the stream of cosmic existence."

Indeed.

Discordant velocities which yet manage to make up a whole at its highest possible velocity.

Strange model this. Could it be that safety was built into such a design?

Auguste Rodin sniffs his knuckles, ruminates on whether he himself was once too Octavian.

Yeah, I'm confused because I don't get how you think this is all implied by the claim that everything has a cause. As far as I know, theists who accept some version of this claim do not necessarily believe:

(a) the universe in its current state is the only state the universe has been.
(b) the universe is everything.

I also don't see how they are implied by either (1) or (2). In fact, theists will generally reject (b) because they don't believe that God is part of the universe.

You said, "I reject premise 2 because it is just an assertion without evidence." But now you say that you haven't read even encyclopedia summaries of the evidence for premise 2. Thus, your rejection of premise 2 is unwarranted. As for a summary, I already pointed you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's excellent summary of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I would recommend it as a starting place if you want to know why some theists accept (2).

This is not a cogent objection to the argument. The fact that you can substitute a term with a different meaning into one of the premises and then derive a conclusion that contradicts the original argument doesn't show anything.

Here is Craig's Kalam Argument:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
4) 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.

Your claim is that this argument fails because if we substitute:

2a) God began to exist.

We then get

3a) Therefore, God has a cause of its existence.

And since theists reject (3a) there must be (according to you), something wrong with this argument.

It's true that (3a) follows from (1) and (2a). But since theists believe that (2a) is false and that (2) is true this doesn't show us that the original argument is unsound.

Here's an example:

5) All humans are mammals.
6) Socrates is a human.
7) Therefore, Socrates is a mammal.

Presumably you'll acknowledge that this is a sound argument. But:

5) All humans are mammals.
6b) The Eiffel Tower is a human.
7b) Therefore, the Eiffel Tower is a mammal.

Just as you did, I just substituted in a term into your original argument. Does this show that (5)-(7) is actually an unsound argument?

No, my claim was true. You seem a little confused about the nature of logical argumentation. In the Kalam argument, (3) is a subconclusion that follows directly from (1) and (2). (4) is arguing an additional point.

Also, why should I believe you when you claim that (4) relies on a gap in knowledge? You already made this claim about (2), but then admitted that you haven't actually looked to see if there really is a gap there. Your credibility about what theists do or do not know about the premises of the cosmological argument is low.

Premise 2 is not an analytic truth. Craig argues at great length that our best scientific models show that the universe began to exist. Presumably you don't think these scientific models are just analytic truths?

Great, so the Universe Expanded. That is all we know. When you say "began to exist" you really mean "began to expand" correct? Do you see how the two are very different?

Lets say hypothetically there is a Multiverse ( I don't necessarily believe this but I believe it to be an entirely possible explanation) Where does God fit in here? Is it not possible some of these universes never had a "big bang" and we are just some kind of result from the hitting eachother or something? This is an explanation that doesn't need God. Since neither of us know if everything had a beginning my suggestion that doesn't require God is just as reasonable for you to accept as one that does require God (based on this argument alone)

Idk, if that is necessarily true but I really don't care. It is clearly implied because if all Craig is saying is THIS universe in its current state had a cause his argument then relies back on premise 4 which asserts an intelligent agent of some kind. Without premise 4, the cause can be something natural.



What evidence is there that the Universe began? I just want you to tell me. I think we are either using began differently or you are misinformed.



Lets try it.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2) God began to exist.
3) Therefore, God has a cause of its existence.
4) Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of God the cause must be personal.

Point out what is wrong with ^ this

Now point out what is wrong with this

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2) Matter in some form has always existed
3) Therefore,matter has never "began" to exist
4) Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the matter the cause must be natural.

Nope, I mean began to exist.

Here's the point you continue to miss. Premise 2, which claims that the universe began to exist, is not an analytic claim. It is an empirical claim. Thus, pointing out that it is possibly false is irrelevant to the argument. Craig's is arguing that science has shown that the universe began to exist, that this was a discovery about the real universe, not some possible universe. This is what makes the criticism of the first cause argument you presented in your OP fail against this version of the argument. This is why you can't just substitute in "God" for the "universe" in premise 2. Science has not shown that God began to exist. Science has shown that the universe began to exist (or at least, that's the claim).

This is confused and wrong. You don't understand Craig's argument and so should stop claiming to find hidden implications in it.

Before we get there, do you acknowledge that your rejection of premise 2 is unwarranted?

Also, I think it is poor manners to keep asking someone to explain something to you if you are not willing to read even encyclopedia entries on what you want them to explain. What would I do that will be better than just copy and pasting that into this thread?

(2) is false.


This is just a different argument, and a poorly constructed one at that. It also has no relevance to the immediate discussion. Essentially your argument is this:

1) Matter has always existed.
2) Therefore, matter has never not existed.

So what? Obviously Kalam argument proponents think the claim that matter has always existed is false.

You're losing track of the dialectic here. This thread is about a specific criticism you think is successful against first cause arguments. I'm seeing if that criticism is successful against the best relevant version of this argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I'm saying it is unsuccessful because the claim that it is possible that the material universe has always existed, even if true, doesn't imply that the material universe has always existed. Thus, it doesn't contradict the truth of premise 2 (The universe began to exist). Thus, it doesn't show that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsuccessful.

Lets just focus on premise 2 for now.

The universe began to exist means "the universe started to expand"

Yes?

You are saying "the universe began to exist" does not mean "the universe was at one point not here"

I found this and I think it is pretty much what I am saying. It may be an issue with language as to why you don't understand me:

Kalam also equivocates on the first premise when it refers to everything that "begins to exist". Presumably this premise is referring to everything around us on this planet--everything in your house, everything on the streets, everything we see in the cosmos. However all of these things did not "begin to exist" in the same sense theists are claiming the universe "began to exist" (creation ex nihilo). According to the laws of thermodynamics, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and everything we are familiar with is a actually reconfiguration of preexisting matter than has been around for billions of years. The atoms that comprise people, places, and planets do not "come into existence" in the same sense Kalam is claiming the universe came into existence (matter appearing from a previous state of non-being/non-existence). Rather they have always existed in some form, and the objects we see around us are merely the latest rearrangements of those atoms. So in speaking of the universe requiring a "cause" for it's existence, Kalam is not referring to it as you would an automobile, which is being "caused" by a group of laborers rearranging physical matter into the form of a car, or mountains being "caused" by the shifting of tectonic plates (also made of atoms which have been around since the big bang), but of something being caused by creation ex nihilo, which is not at all the type of creation we are familiar with in every other circumstance. Kalam therefore is using a word game to equivocate between the behavior of matter and the origin of matter. This is an equivocation between wildly different things.
In summary: Kalam proponents believe God made the universe exist ex nihilo. But everything around us only "begins to exist" in a trivial sense, as rearrangements of preexisting, uncreated stuff. Since the universe is literally the only example of something truly "beginning to exist" from a previous state of nothingness, this means there is a sample set of one in this category, leaving no inductive support for the premise that "whatever begins to exist (ex nihilo) has a cause".
Once the argument is reformulated to take into account the hidden premises, it looks like this:
Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.)
The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
In other words:
Every X has a cause.
The universe Y.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
As you can see, once the equivocation is made plain, the argument is invalid.

No.

No. Although I wouldn't say that there was a time before the universe began to exist, as time itself is one of the things that began to exist when the universe began to exist.

I'll also note that my own view is that the Kalam Cosmologica Argument is an unsuccessful argument, so I'm not presenting my own views here but rather those of the proponents of this argument.

This objection also fails. Proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument really do mean to say that matter came into existence, not just was re-arranged.

I'll also say this objection shouldn't be taken seriously. It claims to identify an equivocation in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but nowhere quotes anything from the proponents of this argument showing that they really do mean the translation of the argument given here.

Mostly, this criticism just arises from an increduility that theists really mean to claim creatio ex nihilo when that is exactly what they do claim. I don't know why this is so difficult to believe. Maybe those who accept this criticism just have a really strong physical intuition that the physical universe has existed forever. Since I don't think their physical intuitions have much evidentiary value I don't really care, but whatever.

Also, please include a link if you quote something.

So, this is what they mean by "began to exist" Yes?

its just an iron chariots page. I just c/p it to better illustrate what I was trying to say because I think they put it better. I will go find the link if you really want it.

Please explain to me what you mean by "began to exist then"

I mean that the universe has not always existed. At some point it started to exist.

How does something not exist? Give me an example of something that did not exist and came into existence.