An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 01:16 PM
An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
This is a formal invitation to cjlr to debate on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I will be the proponent of the argument.
Find all posts by this user
23-03-2014, 01:50 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 01:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  This is a formal invitation to cjlr to debate on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I will be the proponent of the argument.

I claim that the Kalam Cosmological argument is a philosophical syllogism whose conclusion calls for a cause of the universe.

The Kalam is provided below:

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

I seriously doubt the physicist is gonna be bothered with this, suffice to say premise 1 is neither self-evident nor obvious. Tongue

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-03-2014, 02:32 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Presuppositional assertions are not an argument. Naive macroscopic physical intuitions are not sufficient grounds to make such assertions.

Let us - very generously - grant the precise premises you have outlined (while noting that they are not, in fact, valid). Religion has nowhere yet entered the discussion. So there's that. Proponents of such "arguments" are never satisfied with merely what you have so far enumerated - not that you aren't well aware of that.

The entirety of what might reasonably follow is as such:
You: "I assert X because my desired conclusion requires it."
Me: "I do not accept that assertion".

But, uh, go ahead, if you really want to.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 04:47 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 02:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Presuppositional assertions are not an argument. Naive macroscopic physical intuitions are not sufficient grounds to make such assertions.

Let us - very generously - grant the precise premises you have outlined (while noting that they are not, in fact, valid). Religion has nowhere yet entered the discussion. So there's that. Proponents of such "arguments" are never satisfied with merely what you have so far enumerated - not that you aren't well aware of that.

The entirety of what might reasonably follow is as such:
You: "I assert X because my desired conclusion requires it."
Me: "I do not accept that assertion".

But, uh, go ahead, if you really want to.

The Kalam is as follows:

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Do you take issue with either of the premises?
Find all posts by this user
23-03-2014, 04:52 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 04:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The Kalam is as follows:

Let us be entirely clear. Is this the full extent of the argument you are making?

(23-03-2014 04:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Do you take issue with either of the premises?

I take numerous issues.

Define "everything".
Define "begin".
Define "exist".
Define "cause".
Define "universe".

"That", "to", "has", and "a", I accept.

I could also take issue with the relevance of the conclusion as presented, since you have not yet mentioned the additional premises we both know you to hold and without which no connection to any religious belief may be drawn.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 04:58 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I take numerous issues.

Define "everything".
eve·ry·thingˈevrēˌTHiNG/ pronoun all things; all the things of a group or class
(23-03-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "begin".
To come into existence.
(23-03-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "exist".
To be
(23-03-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "cause".
That which brings about an effect.
(23-03-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "universe".
u·ni·verseˈyo͞onəˌvərs/ noun - all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Jeremy E Walker's post
23-03-2014, 05:19 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 05:23 PM by cjlr.)
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 04:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "everything".
eve·ry·thingˈevrēˌTHiNG/ pronoun all things; all the things of a group or class

Not good enough.

This is implicitly applicable only to objects within the universe, those being the only ones available for consideration.

(23-03-2014 04:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "begin".
To come into existence.

Not good enough.

This is dependent on the properties of time and causality, both of which are implicitly applicable only to objects within the universe, those being the only ones available for consideration.

(23-03-2014 04:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "exist".
To be

Not good enough.

This is merely a restatement.

(23-03-2014 04:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "cause".
That which brings about an effect.

Not good enough.

This is merely a restatement - no doubt you'd define "effect" as "something caused".
Rolleyes

(23-03-2014 04:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 04:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define "universe".
u·ni·verseˈyo͞onəˌvərs/ noun - all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

That's probably sufficient.

Remember, you are the one making the case here. It is incumbent on you to adequately define your terminology. The "definitions" above are simplistic and tautological.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 11 users Like cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 05:44 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not good enough.

Sounds like a personal problem.

(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is implicitly applicable only to objects within the universe, those being the only ones available for consideration.

Yea, kinda goes without saying.

(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not good enough.

Sounds like a personal problem.

(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is dependent on the properties of time and causality, both of which are implicitly applicable only to objects within the universe, those being the only ones available for consideration.

Yea, kinda goes without saying.

(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not good enough.

Sounds like a personal problem.

(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is merely a restatement.

No it is not but if you want a definition look it up.

(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not good enough.

Sounds like a personal problem.

(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is merely a restatement - no doubt you'd define "effect" as "something caused".
Rolleyes

If you are having issues, then take them up with the publishers of the dictionaries from which these definitions are taken. I am just the messenger.

(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's probably sufficient.

Remember, you are the one making the case here. It is incumbent on you to adequately define your terminology. The "definitions" above are simplistic and tautological.

Then you will have to take that up with the people who determine what the definitions of words are, not me.

This seems like it will be easy. So do not expect me to withdraw at anytime.

Your turn. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
23-03-2014, 05:50 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not good enough.

Sounds like a personal problem.

That's a delightfully vacuous dodge.

(23-03-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is implicitly applicable only to objects within the universe, those being the only ones available for consideration.

Yea, kinda goes without saying.

No, it doesn't.

That limitation means that one cannot generalise contingent properties of objects within the universe to the universe as a whole.

Your premises are based on groundless overgeneralisation. So there's that.

(23-03-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not good enough.

Sounds like a personal problem.

That's a delightfully vacuous dodge.

(23-03-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is dependent on the properties of time and causality, both of which are implicitly applicable only to objects within the universe, those being the only ones available for consideration.

Yea, kinda goes without saying.

And therefore, once again, one cannot apply such considerations to the universe itself, nor to its origin. That is the height of non sequitur.

(23-03-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not good enough.

Sounds like a personal problem.

That's a delightfully vacuous dodge.

(23-03-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is merely a restatement.

No it is not but if you want a definition look it up.

"LOL dictionary" is a trite and shallow response.

If you cannot elaborate upon your own arguments then you do not understand your arguments, and such a situation really needs to be rectified before anyone has any reason to take you seriously.

(23-03-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not good enough.

Sounds like a personal problem.

That's a delightfully vacuous dodge.

(goddamn but you're repetitive, bud)

(23-03-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is merely a restatement - no doubt you'd define "effect" as "something caused".
Rolleyes

If you are having issues, then take them up with the publishers of the dictionaries from which these definitions are taken. I am just the messenger.

Philosophers are generally not content with "lol dictionary" as the be-all and end-all of establishing terminology. Although trolls certainly love that easy out.

That the dictionary defines "knowledge" somehow hasn't obviated the entire field of epistemology.

That the dictionary defines "begin" and "exist" does not lend any credence whatsoever to a cosmological argument based on their misunderstanding and/or misapplication.

(23-03-2014 05:44 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 05:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's probably sufficient.

Remember, you are the one making the case here. It is incumbent on you to adequately define your terminology. The "definitions" above are simplistic and tautological.

Then you will have to take that up with the people who determine what the definitions of words are, not me.

This seems like it will be easy. So do not expect me to withdraw at anytime.

Your turn. Drinking Beverage

Since you cannot in fact define your own argument, I have as yet nothing to respond to.

Drinking Beverage

Assertions are not arguments. Naive physical intuition is not substantiation. Dictionary definitions are not sufficient basis for philosophy.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 06:09 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:01 PM)Baruch Wrote:  You could also define "The universe" as "The totality of all that exists" or "set of all things that exist" (whether time, mass, energy, quantum fluctuations, causality - basically all properties, substances and any forms of energy)

This is a very reasonable definition and not arbitrary - (it also agrees with the principle of conservation of energy.)

If so the kalam argument fails.

Existence cannot have a cause because causes are part (a sub-set) of existence itself. (causality exists within the universe)
Causality presupposes time which is part of existence. Causality also prepossesses some sort of energy exchange or transfer - again these are part of existence and can only be understood within the universe (within the total set of all that exists)

QUIET, YOU. I WAS GETTING TO THAT.

lol jk.

The premises of the cosmological argument are predicated on an extremely shallow and naive cosmology - that "the universe" is a sort of box, within which certain rules apply - and that there is such a thing as "before" and "outside" the universe, which is just like a slightly bigger box within which all the same rules apply...

Why do people find this in any way compelling, again?

But why be facetious - we know exactly why people latch onto it. Rather than admit "I don't know" as a valid answer - despite that being the answer any honest scientist would give - a half-assed "proof" of deism by fiat gives the jumping off point to ass-pull one's specific religious beliefs...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: