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, 06:16 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(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...

I am basic my argument off of the Standard Cosmological Model that calls for an absolute beginning of all matter, all energy, and the space-time manifold itself.
Find all posts by this user
23-03-2014, 06:20 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:12 PM)Baruch Wrote:  cjlr is correct Jeremy and I think you agreed with him.

Once you agree to the obvious - that causality applies to objects/properties/energy WITHIN the universe (or what begins to exist within the universe) then you cannot extrapolate to "outside the universe" (whatever that means)

It is a non-sequitur fallacy and fallacy of composition.

fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole


i.e parts of the universe have properties of causality but it doesn't follow what the entire set "the universe" has the same properties - this is an illegitimate move (non sequitur)

Not much point continuing because after this the Kalam has already failed - its premises are not valid.

Sorry bud, but my reasoning for maintaining premise one is true is not that we see effects being brought into existence by causes in our universe, rather, that the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come from nothing is pretty self-evident.

And this is supposed to be between cjlr and myself. Why all the interference?
Find all posts by this user
23-03-2014, 06:26 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 06:34 PM by cjlr.)
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am basic my argument off of the Standard Cosmological Model that calls for an absolute beginning of all matter, all energy, and the space-time manifold itself.

There is no physical model known as the "Standard Cosmological Model". I am not sure what you are here referring to.
EDIT: I'll be generous and assume you mean Lambda-cosmology. This is a model which generally accounts for observation up to the big bang. It does not and can not make any statement to anything beyond the post-Big Bang behaviour of the universe.

What is observable regarding our universe is that expansion (and necessarily 'time' and 'causality') began at a certain point in the past (generally referred to as the Big Bang), beyond which nothing is known.

There are in fact several beginnings of models (e.g. M-theory) by which a "universe" might be said to "exist" (or even "begin") within the defines of some "larger" framework, but naive macroscopic physical intuition derived from our interaction with our universe do not and cannot apply.
(notwithstanding that none of these are deistic)

Since you already admitted that your own definitions of such concepts as causality and beginning apply only within the universe, and that they cannot be meaningfully applied to the universe itself, any attempt to do so (as in the cosmological argument as presented) is founded on fallacy.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 06:31 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Sorry bud, but my reasoning for maintaining premise one is true is not that we see effects being brought into existence by causes in our universe, rather, that the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come from nothing is pretty self-evident.

How many times do I need to say this?

Naive macroscopic physical intuition is not substantiation.

An assertion which amounts to nothing more than "but I feel like it should be true" is not possible to debate.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 06:42 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 07:28 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There is no physical model known as the "Standard Cosmological Model". I am not sure what you are here referring to.

The ΛCDM or Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model in which the universe contains a cosmological constant, denoted by Lambda (Greek Λ), and cold dark matter (abbreviated CDM). It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology, since it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos:
the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background
the large-scale structure in the distribution of galaxies
the abundances of hydrogen (including deuterium), helium, and lithium
the accelerating expansion of the universe observed in the light from distant galaxies and supernovae -Wikipedia

From Berkeley:

The Standard Cosmology

Over the course of the past several decades, cosmologists have used countless observations to come up with a sort of biography of the universe, a model of the history and structure of the universe often called the "Standard Cosmology". A brief outline of the Standard Cosmology is given below - for more detail, send a question to our FAQ page!

The Big Bang Model

The universe began (or, at least, became interesting) approximately 13 billion years ago when it began expanding from an almost inconceivably hot, dense state. Ever since then, the universe has more or less continued its long process of expansion and cooling, eventually reaching the cold, sparse state we see today.
In the first 10-34 seconds or so of the universe's history, it underwent a brief period of extremely fast expansion, known as inflation. This period smoothed out the universe's original lumpiness and left it with the homogeneity and isotropy we see today. Quantum mechanical fluctuations during this process were imprinted on the universe as density fluctuations, which later seeded the formation of structure.
The early universe was a soup of matter and energy, in which particle/antiparticle pairs were constantly being born and annihilating. As the universe cooled, it eventually became too cold to produce certain kinds of particles - for example, proton/antiproton pair creation stopped below a few trillion Kelvin, while electron/positron pair creation continued until temperatures of a few billion Kelvin. After this point, the remaining particle/antiparticle pairs quickly annihilate, leaving little behind. When this process happens for a particular species of particle, that particle is said to have frozen out. The only reason we have any matter in the universe at all is because of a poorly-understood process called baryogenesis, caused by an asymmetry in the physics of matter and antimatter.
During the first 10 minutes or so, various light elements such as deuterium (a heavy isotope of hydrogen), helium-3, helium-4, and lithium-7 are created by the combination of free protons and neutrons created in baryogenesis. This process of light-element formation is called Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
After about 100,000 years, the universe finally cools to a few thousand Kelvin, cold enough for free nuclei and electrons to begin to combine into atoms. This process occurs during a time period called the era of recombination. Before recombination, the universe was opaque to light and other electromagnetic radiation - the large number of free electrons are just too good at scattering light. After the formation of atoms, the universe becomes transparent - it becomes possible for light to travel large distances (for example, across the visible universe) without getting knocked off course too badly. The light released at this time is perceived today (after redshifting by the universe's expansion) as the cosmic microwave background, the afterglow of the Big Bang's heat. By this time, dark matter (unaffected by the behavior of the baryonic matter) had already begun to collapse into halos.
Galaxies and stars began to form after a few hundred million years, when the baryonic gas and dust collapsed to the center of the pre-existing dark matter halos.

(23-03-2014 06:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What is observable regarding our universe is that expansion (and necessarily 'time' and 'causality') began at a certain point in the past (generally referred to as the Big Bang), beyond which nothing is known.

This is assuming methodological naturalism. You essentially say that we can know nothing about what happened prior to the big bang because science cannot tell us what happened. This is to assume science is the only feasible means of acquiring knowledge. A position which must in itself, be justified. If not you are simply begging the question.

Not only that, but this in no way undercuts or rebuts either of the two premises of the argument.

(23-03-2014 06:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There are in fact several beginnings of models (e.g. M-theory) by which a "universe" might be said to "exist" (or even "begin") within the defines of some "larger" framework, but naive macroscopic physical intuition derived from our interaction with our universe do not and cannot apply.
(notwithstanding that none of these are deistic)

And none of these models have even the slightest shred of evidence to support them. They are purely theoretical. Being that they are such, they cannot be utilized as "alternatives" to the Standard Model which has been repeatedly confirmed through the findings of the cosmological community.

(23-03-2014 06:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Since you already admitted that your own definitions of such concepts as causality and beginning apply only within the universe, and that they cannot be meaningfully applied to the universe itself, any attempt to do so (as in the cosmological argument as presented) is founded on fallacy.

Close but no cigar. I have never stated that the METAPHYSICAL principle of causation is only applicable to events within the universe. You see, what you are saying is that premise 1 is true of everything in the universe but not of the universe itself. But this response commits what has been aptly called “the taxicab fallacy.” Nineteenth century atheist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer quipped, premise 1 can’t be dismissed like a cab once you’ve arrived at your desired destination!

It would be arbitrary for you to claim that the universe is the exception to the rule and that it does not need a cause for its existence if it came into existence at some point roughly 15 billion years ago as the Standard Model shows.

Notice, too, how unscientific your reasoning is. For modern cosmology is devoted to the search for an explanation of the universe’s existence. If cosmologists had the attitude you do, they would not have a job for there would be no need to search for an explanation of the beginning of the cosmos.
Find all posts by this user
23-03-2014, 06:45 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 06:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Sorry bud, but my reasoning for maintaining premise one is true is not that we see effects being brought into existence by causes in our universe, rather, that the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come from nothing is pretty self-evident.

How many times do I need to say this?

Naive macroscopic physical intuition is not substantiation.

An assertion which amounts to nothing more than "but I feel like it should be true" is not possible to debate.

Great, then provide some type of rebutting or undercutting defeater to the metaphysical principle which states that from nothing, nothing comes, and you will be well on your way!Laughat
Find all posts by this user
23-03-2014, 06:55 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 07:04 PM by cjlr.)
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The ΛCDM or Lambda-CDM model

My edit clarifies this. The infodump is unnecessary.

It's good to know you can copy and paste.

Note how none of that is at all applicable to anything but the evolution of the universe post Big Bang.

(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  This is assuming methodological naturalism.

So now you're arguing against naturalism? Interesting.

(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You essentially say that we can know nothing about what happened prior to the big bang because science cannot tell us what happened.

I did not in fact say that.

I said science does not know. I make no comment on the limits of future knowledge.

(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  This is to assume science is the only feasible means of acquiring knowledge. A position which must in itself, be justified. If not you are simply begging the question.

No. That is the default position, as that is the only means by which it ever has been demonstrated that knowledge may be gained.

(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Not only that, but this in no way undercuts or rebuts either of the two premises of the argument.

Thus illustrating that you do not understand what you're saying.

If you can't define your terms, I do not suppose you can be expected to see how they are being misapplied...

(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  And none of these models have even the slightest shred of evidence to support them. They are purely theoretical. Being that they are such, they cannot be utilized as "alternatives" to the Standard Model which has been repeatedly confirmed through the findings of the cosmological community.

To frame them as "alternatives" is to fundamentally misunderstand. They are not "alternatives". They are supplemental.

"Purely theoretical" is also a perfectly apt description of any deistic argument, as it happens.

(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 06:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Since you already admitted that your own definitions of such concepts as causality and beginning apply only within the universe, and that they cannot be meaningfully applied to the universe itself, any attempt to do so (as in the cosmological argument as presented) is founded on fallacy.

Close but no cigar. I have never stated that the METAPHYSICAL principle of causation is only applicable to events within the universe.

I think you see the problem here:
define 'metaphysical'.

(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You see, what you are saying is that premise 1 is true of everything in the universe but not of the universe itself.

No, I'm saying I'll grant premise 1 for things within the universe for the sake of argument.

And you are saying "the origin of the universe obeys the rules of the universe because reasons".

(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  But this response commits what has been aptly called “the taxicab fallacy.” Nineteenth century atheist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer quipped, premise 1 can’t be dismissed like a cab once you’ve arrived at your desired destination!

Nice try - except for the part where that's stupid.

Recognizing that causality as we understand it is a property of the universe, and therefore cannot be generalised to apply to the universe itself, is not fallacy.

(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It would be arbitrary for you to claim that the universe is the exception to the rule and that it does not need a cause for its existence if it came into existence at some point roughly 15 billion years ago as the Standard Model shows.

The universe is necessarily an exception to a rule which applies within the limits of the universe itself.

You are being incoherent.

It is akin to asking "how many points is it worth if I make a basket from outside the basketball arena". Only the basketball arena is the sum total of existence and thus has no outside. Do you see the problem with this?

(23-03-2014 06:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Notice, too, how unscientific your reasoning is. For modern cosmology is devoted to the search for an explanation of the universe’s existence. If cosmologists had the attitude you do, they would not have a job for there would be need to search for an explanation of the beginning of the cosmos.

This is a strawman you just made up. I defy you to show where - anywhere in my words - anything I said can be honestly construed as denigrating investigation.

What you have presented is several baseless assertions which you cannot even define let alone substantiate with anything but naivete and wishful thinking.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 7 users Like cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 07:08 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Great, then provide some type of rebutting or undercutting defeater to the metaphysical principle which states that from nothing, nothing comes, and you will be well on your way!Laughat

Define nothing. Define metaphysical.

And then provide some substantiation for the claim. "Naive physical intuition" is not substantiation.

To rebut your baseless assertions requires precisely as much evidence as you provide for them - none.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 07:13 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 06:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No, I'm saying I'll grant premise 1 for things within the universe for the sake of argument.

Good. Now on to premise 2. Do you object to it?


(23-03-2014 06:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Recognizing that causality as we understand it is a property of the universe, and therefore cannot be generalised to apply to the universe itself, is not fallacy.

Yes it is because you arbitrarily make the universe itself an exception to the principle without justification, thus committing the taxicab fallacy. In fact you do it again here:

(23-03-2014 06:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The universe is necessarily an exception to a rule which applies within the limits of the universe itself.

You're also arguing in a circle. Why does the principle of causality only apply to events within the universe and not the universe itself?

Your answer: Because it applies within the limits of the universe itself.

Which is not an answer, but a tautology. Facepalm

(23-03-2014 06:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is a strawman you just made up. I defy you to show where - anywhere in my words - anything I said can be honestly construed as denigrating investigation.

You denigrate the investigation of cosmologists because you would have them believe that the universe does not have a cause. That it "just popped into existence uncaused!" But cosmologists make their bones by investigating this very matter! Weeping
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
23-03-2014, 07:24 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 07:39 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(23-03-2014 07:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 06:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Great, then provide some type of rebutting or undercutting defeater to the metaphysical principle which states that from nothing, nothing comes, and you will be well on your way!Laughat

Define nothing. Define metaphysical.

And then provide some substantiation for the claim. "Naive physical intuition" is not substantiation.

To rebut your baseless assertions requires precisely as much evidence as you provide for them - none.

I find it quite revealing, quite telling, that you would go to such great lengths to deny something so undeniable.

I am learning more about the psychology of atheists the more I dialogue with them.

For you to sit up here and really try to cast doubt on something so undeniable as the principle of causation is amazing. The only reason you are doing this is because this is an argument about the existence of something that created the universe.

If it were anything else you would gladly agree that premise one is at least more plausible than its negation.

So tell me, since you disagree with premise one, tell me, why do things like bicycles, and cars, and houses, and people not just pop into existence uncaused?

Why is it that everywhere we see an effect, we see a cause for it? Without ceasing. You cannot even furnish one example of something coming into existence without a cause and yet you adamantly deny this premise!!!!Facepalm

I am utterly astonished that one who would appear to be so smart could be so willfully blind.

In our current state of affairs it is safe and reasonable to assume something exists - be it a universe, pure conciousness, illusion or other designations. If some readers nevertheless assume something does not exist right now, then this question effectively becomes meaningless to them but to us "cogito ergo sum" should suffice.

So let us assume right now something exists.

Therefore, when something cannot come from nothing then something must have always existed and cannot have a beginning. The universe began to exist, logically it follows that something other than the universe which has always existed, exists.

This stuff we are talking about is not hard at all. In fact it is quite simple. A child understand the law of cause and effect. They are always asking about how this thing or that thing got there and who made it all.

No need to muddy the waters with big words.

If I were to walk around telling people: Oh yea man you know stuff can just pop into existence without a cause ya know!, I promise you it would not be long before I was in an insane asylum.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: