• Sapientia
    5.5k
    No theologian ever thought of that. All those centuries, and to think! their reasoning could be defeated by simple schoolchild logic. Oh the futility.Wayfarer

    My comments related to the claims of Marcus de Brun, which can easily be shown to be contradictory. If this same refutation also applies to the claims of theologians over the centuries, then all the worse for them! But you're the one who made the link, not me.
  • Sapientia
    5.5k
    I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that nothing comes from nothing: is there an example of a contradiction?Marcus de Brun

    Yes, an example of a contradiction would be a creator-thing which comes from nothing.
  • ssu
    458
    I'm an agnostic.

    Logic or faith are ways for us to answer questions about reality. Objective science cannot tell us what is morally right or wrong, it just states what is. Faith and religion give that answer to these kinds of questions quite well. Has worked for ages. Otherwise for any kind of question that can be answered objectively, logic and science are the way to go.

    I think that atheism tends to give a far too simplistic World view. When explaining God away, it then has to seek some "humanism" or something as the answer to moral (or subjective). Besides, atheists can be as annoying as some crazy rapture-believing fundamentalists, if they have the desire to tell people just why they are atheists or worse, if they have a "mission" to be against the perils of religion.

    Who knows? is a great answer.
  • Hanover
    3.6k
    Determinism which has already been deductively proven by Schopenhauer and which of itself is reasonable and empirically valid, is clearly the starting point for an answer. It asserts in essence that the future is already in existence as it is determined.Marcus de Brun

    Your acceptance of determinism as truth cannot be attributed to the persausive force of deductive logic, but only to the causative effects of determinism, meaning your entire enterprise of presenting these arguments is just you mindlessly reciting arguments that you should have no expectation to bear any relation to reality. You're just telling me what you must and you're believing what you must and I'm now typing what I must. You cannot allow for reasonable evaluation and independent judgment and assessment of your arguments (by you or me) in a determined world.
  • Sapientia
    5.5k
    Determinism which has already been deductively proven by Schopenhauer and which of itself is reasonable and empirically valid, is clearly the starting point for an answer.Marcus de Brun

    That's going to raise a few eyebrows, I predict.
  • Rank Amateur
    95
    if I understand your point, you are saying, there is no necessary being, because things come into existence in some exchange of matter and energy. CA is just asking what is the next regression, what caused the material and energy. As for the relatively of time, again with my limited understanding, it points to singularly, which supports CA

    All that aside, my objection to your point, if I understand it correctly, is simply- science can not defeat CA, until it does. And it has not done that. In effect your point elevates science to religion. Science can not defeat CA now, but you have faith it will.
  • Rank Amateur
    95
    within some realm of reasonableness we know as a matter of scientific fact what a rock is. We can trace the contingency of rocks back, they are as a matter of fact, contingent

    If you want to challenge the existence of rocks on some level of is reality real, are we in the matrix, etc etc. I have no real interest.
  • Uber
    147
    Rank:

    I never said anything about necessary beings, nor is that an implied position of my analysis, which is focused on the CA itself and not on any other philosophical argument. What I've stressed all along is that the two premises of the CA cannot describe causality in a way that's consistent with what we actually know about the world.

    Modern science is not necessary to defeat the CA, although it can certainly help. The theist proponents of the CA have defeated themselves by cherry-picking from modern science as they see fit. On the one hand, they use the Big Bang to argue that the Universe, by which they mean something like "all of reality" without explicitly stating it, had a beginning. On the other hand, they define or understand causality in ways that are incompatible with all scientific theories, including the Big Bang itself (and also thermodynamics, relativity, etc). They adopt "Neo-Lorentzian" ideas on relativity that no serious physicist would endorse. They're trying to have it both ways to force their preferred conclusion.
  • Rank Amateur
    95
    the entire basis of CA is there is a necessary being - thought that was obvious
  • Marcus de Brun
    142


    Your acceptance of determinism as truth cannot be attributed to the persausive force of deductive logic, but only to the causative effects of determinism, meaning your entire enterprise of presenting these arguments is just you mindlessly reciting arguments that you should have no expectation to bear any relation to reality.

    There is much in this assertion, and there is much lacking in this assertion. I suggest that you consider starting a new discussion thread, where we might explore the concept of Determinism more thoroughly. You appear to be suggesting that Determinism is mind-less. I don't think a Determined Universe is predicated upon an entirely mindless participation in same. There may well be aspects of consciousness that are truly free, however this is not the topic of this thread.


    You're just telling me what you must and you're believing what you must

    It is a bit presumptuous of you to inform me what I am believing? You may or may not be correct but how have you gained such an insight into my mind and its contents? Please provide some evidence for this assertion.

    and I'm now typing what I must.

    Indeed in a determined Universe you are typing what you must. However that which you are typing is only the faintest reflection of that which you might be thinking. It may not in fact be any reflection of your thought at all. For example whilst you are typing you may be thinking...... 'I will put this egotistical self righteous asshole in his place!' Or you may be thinking that 'I must put the garbage out' etc., That, may be your thinking whilst you are typing (I am not suggesting it is your thinking) and yet, that which you have written is of a different portent entirely.

    You cannot allow for reasonable evaluation and independent judgment and assessment of your arguments (by you or me) in a determined world.

    You appear to be asserting that all aspects of the thinking processes inherent to 'judgement and assessment' are un-free. This assertion suggests that you have a rather fixed or determined notion of Determinism. I suggest you consider these assertions more thoroughly, and then start a thread where we might discuss same.

    For the moment at least they are quite off topic.

    M
  • Marcus de Brun
    142


    That's going to raise a few eyebrows, I predict.

    Possibly, but I doubt it. Philosophy is currently in a coma, all that remains is for the machine to be switched off.

    M
  • Uber
    147
    I don't see that as the basis of the CA at all. What conclusion of the CA says "The Universe has a cause from a necessary being"? That's an implication of the argument which is inserted at the end to justify theological propaganda. My interest in the argument comes way before we get to the point of necessary beings and flying angels.

    If the cosmological argument was stated as follows, I would be in agreement, more or less.

    1) Everything that begins to exist in reality has a material cause.

    2) The observable universe is a small part of reality that began to exist.

    3) Therefore, the observable universe had a material cause.

    Point being: you can easily have a CA that shows the Universe had materialistic causes.
  • Marcus de Brun
    142


    Why not get the cosmology half-right before the argument bit?

    The various presuppositions associated with the cosmology place the argument upon a determined and predictable trajectory.

    M
  • Uber
    147
    I definitely agree that the argument can be manipulated to justify pretty much any preconception of reality. That's what I was demonstrating in the previous post.
  • Wayfarer
    6k
    1) Everything that begins to exist in reality has a material cause.Uber

    What about numbers?
  • Uber
    147
    What about them?
  • Wayfarer
    6k
    Do they exist? Do they have a material cause? Are they real?
  • Rank Amateur
    95
    the idea of a necessary being is Aquinas 3 rd proof, it is a CA. Didn't think I needed to be that explicit in that concept.
  • andrewk
    1.2k
    We can trace the contingency of rocks back, they are as a matter of fact, contingentRank Amateur
    What evidence do you have for the claim that rocks are contingent? It seems to me that, if the words 'necessary being' mean anything at all, then rocks must be necessary beings.The fact that we can trace the history of a rock does nothing to tell us whether or not that rock 'could' have not existed.

    More generally, I find it hard to imagine anything more necessary than the universe.
  • Uber
    147
    But I was not analyzing the 'proofs' of Aquinas, was I? I was specifically talking about the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.