The Kalam-ing presence of Doctor Lane Craig.

[Outrider]

There is no such requirement. The requirement is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Sorry, but the cosmological argument was originally 'that which exists has a cause'.  Craig (and others) picked up al-Ghazli's (sp?) refinement of that obvious flaw with 'that which begins to exist', which just shifts the problem - now it becomes why does everything else in existence need to begin but TFT doesn't?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Doesn't really matter. We can't show that anything that begins to exist has a cause, we can only assume it.

So the first premise isn't evidenced at all. Even if we allow the assumption, then the problem of induction applies.

And that's just the first premise. All versions I have seen of the Kalam are logically flawed.

Of course it matters. You are just trying to back up your sloppy thinking fellow atheists.

It doesn't surprise me coming from a Humeian.

[jeremyp]

That's fine. Show us something then which doesn't depend for existence on anything external.

You first.

Show me how your god doesn't depend on anything external. I'll concede that you might find that tricky since you can't even show me how your god exists at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You first.

Show me how your god doesn't depend on anything external. I'll concede that you might find that tricky since you can't even show me how your god exists at all.

You first.

Show me how your god doesn't depend on anything external. I'll concede that you might find that tricky since you can't even show me how your god exists at all.

I dont have to go first......or even go.
I am in the enviable position of admitting I can't.....something seemingly impossible for you.

I am also in the enviable position of being able to agree that there could be something in the universe that might be the necessary.

If we cannot show what it is which is necessary we are in the same boat as the classic theist.

If we bottle it and say well everything is contingent then we have self elected to be the village fucking idiot.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it matters. You are just trying to back up your sloppy thinking fellow atheists.

It doesn't surprise me coming from a Humeian.

I've pointed out why it doesn't matter. Simply saying it does matter doesn't get you anywhere.

So to repeat what argument do you have against:

' We can't show that anything that begins to exist has a cause, we can only assume it.

So the first premise isn't evidenced at all. Even if we allow the assumption, then the problem of induction applies.

And that's just the first premise.'

[Nearly Sane]

I dont have to go first......or even go.
I am in the enviable position of admitting I can't.....something seemingly impossible for you.

I am also in the enviable position of being able to agree that there could be something in the universe that might be the necessary.

If we cannot show what it is which is necessary we are in the same boat as the classic theist.

If we bottle it and say well everything is contingent then we have self elected to be the village fucking idiot.

Except contingent and necessary as already covered are based around that cannot be shown. I am in the even more enviable position of not begging the question as regards everything beginning to exist having a cause. So until you show that as being true - no progress can be made.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've pointed out why it doesn't matter. Simply saying it does matter doesn't get you anywhere.

So to repeat what argument do you have against:

' We can't show that anything that begins to exist has a cause, we can only assume it.

So the first premise isn't evidenced at all. Even if we allow the assumption, then the problem of induction applies.

And that's just the first premise.'

OK we will run with you since something popping out of nowhere is a massive Hume trope.

The universe just popped out of nothing then.

Hang on chaps......how do we know it didn't come from somewhere else?

How do we know it hasn't always been here?

How do we know it wasn't created ex nihilo?

[jeremyp]

I dont have to go first......or even go.
I am in the enviable position of admitting I can't.....something seemingly impossible for you.

That's totally ridiculous. We've already admitted multiple times that we don't know why there is a Universe rather than not. But that is not at issue. What is at issue is your claim that the Universe had to have a creator in the form of a god.

I am also in the enviable position of being able to agree that there could be something in the universe that might be the necessary.

Nobody else has made any kind of claim that something in the Universe is necessary. We have simply pointed out that nothing in your argument rules out the possibility that the Universe itself is necessary or that some other thing that doesn't conform to the definition of your god might be necessary.

[Nearly Sane]

OK we will run with you since something popping out of nowhere is a massive Hume trope.

The universe just popped out of nothing then.

Hang on chaps......how do we know it didn't come from somewhere else?

How do we know it hasn't always been here?

How do we know it wasn't created ex nihilo?

Nope, you've missed the point. I'm not saying anything about how the universe or anything came to be. I am not ruling anything out. Just pointing  out that the first premise of the Kalam is logically flawed for the reasons given - which you have ignored.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except contingent and necessary as already covered are based around that cannot be shown. I am in the even more enviable position of not begging the question as regards everything beginning to exist having a cause. So until you show that as being true - no progress can be made.

Now Sane be honest here...... Contingency is supremely demonstrable. Follow then the logic of where you would like us to be.......that's right.....
Contingency is all I can see......

And therefore?

Um er, There are only contingent things?

I Vlad being the returning officer for Religion Ethics declare said person elected as village idiot.

[Nearly Sane]

Now Sane be honest here...... Contingency is supremely demonstrable. Follow then the logic of where you would like us to be.......that's right.....
Contingency is all I can see......

And therefore?

Um er, There are only contingent things?

I Vlad being the returning officer for Religion Ethics declare said person elected as village idiot.

That's assertion, not an argument. You need to show that nothing begins to exist without a cause.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's assertion, not an argument. You need to show that nothing begins to exist without a cause.

Whatever pops up out of nothing without explanation or cause is definitionally necessary. So I'm afraid today's wankover demolition of the argument from contingency has ended in failure. As for Lane Craig's argument. I have heard it said that Craig understands it as a probabilistic one.

[Nearly Sane]

Whatever pops up out of nothing without explanation or cause is definitionally necessary. So I'm afraid today's wankover demolition of the argument from contingency has ended in failure. As for Lane Craig's argument. I have heard it said that Craig understands it as a probabilistic one.

ANd again you are missing the point, and conflating two arguments. This is not about anything being necessary or contingent it's about demonstrating the fist premise of the Kalam, If you can't show that everything that began to exist has a cause then it fails.

And worse, I haven't seen you demonstrate that anything that begins to exist has a cause - only assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ANd again you are missing the point, and conflating two arguments. This is not about anything being necessary or contingent it's about demonstrating the fist premise of the Kalam, If you can't show that everything that began to exist has a cause then it fails.

And worse, I haven't seen you demonstrate that anything that begins to exist has a cause - only assertion.

I'm just wondering why, as a naturalist, one should be bending backwards to invest in what is very likely the extremely thin possibility that the universe does something so counter to the laws of nature  as to produce something from nothing in fact it wouldn't even be nature that was doing it?

How could you ever face resurrectionists or transubstantiationists and tell them that they were talking crap?

So thanks for evidence of extreme God dodging. As a probabilistic argument the Kalam just knocks spots over what must be the most improbable thing ever.

Now what little rule in what wee game of logic am I breaking here with my infuriating practicality?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry, but the cosmological argument was originally 'that which exists has a cause'.  Craig (and others) picked up al-Ghazli's (sp?) refinement of that obvious flaw with 'that which begins to exist', which just shifts the problem - now it becomes why does everything else in existence need to begin but TFT doesn't?

O.

Yes...and Wordsworth's first draft was shit.

[Stranger]

There is no such requirement.
The requirement is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Regardless of this being a dodgy premiss anyway, as far as the general relativity view is correct, the space-time manifold didn't begin to exist.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm just wondering why, as a naturalist, one should be bending backwards to invest in what is very likely the extremely thin possibility that the universe does something so counter to the laws of nature  as to produce something from nothing in fact it wouldn't even be nature that was doing it?

How could you ever face resurrectionists or transubstantiationists and tell them that they were talking crap?

So thanks for evidence of extreme God dodging. As a probabilistic argument the Kalam just knocks spots over what must be the most improbable thing ever.

Now what little rule in what wee game of logic am I breaking here with my infuriating practicality?

I am not a philosophical naturalist. You have misunderstood the objection which is to the first premise of WLC's formulation of the Kalam. You need to demonstrate that it is true for it to be worthwhile. It is not a probablistic statement. It's an absolute claim.

[Outrider]

Yes...and Wordsworth's first draft was shit.

Wordsworth wasn't guilty of special pleading, though - what reason do we have to think that there's some special 'first thing' that doesn't have a beginning?  And if that 'thing' can exist with beginning, why can't reality exist without beginning?

O.

[Stranger]

If we cannot show what it is which is necessary we are in the same boat as the classic theist.

Vlad forgets the burden of proof yet again. We know the universe exists, we have no reason whatsoever to think your favourite variety of god does.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am not a philosophical naturalist. You have misunderstood the objection which is to the first premise of WLC's formulation of the Kalam. You need to demonstrate that it is true for it to be worthwhile. It is not a probablistic statement. It's an absolute claim.

But it could be a probabilistic argument which I guess is bad news for somebody who has bet the house on the most improbable thing er, not even in the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad forgets the burden of proof yet again. We know the universe exists, we have no reason whatsoever to think your favourite variety of god does.

utter gobshiting and spew drawing bollocks.
If somebody states which Jeremy did that the Universe is the necessary entity then he has to demonstrate necessity.

No ifs or buts, no "keep him sweet I want to get into the Lodge" No "But hes a stand up guy life long atheist loves Alsations and is Godfather to  my kids". He has to demonstrate necessity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wordsworth wasn't guilty of special pleading, though - what reason do we have to think that there's some special 'first thing' that doesn't have a beginning?  And if that 'thing' can exist with beginning, why can't reality exist without beginning?

O.

Not specially pleading since I've not poo pooed finally the idea of the universe not having a beginning although it looks as if it had kind of a beginning.

[Nearly Sane]

But it could be a probabilistic argument which I guess is bad news for somebody who has bet the house on the most improbable thing er, not even in the universe.

I haven't bet anything on anything. You have - in this thread the Kalam. The first premise is not probabilistic. You can tell by the use of the word 'everything' that it is an absolute claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't bet anything on anything. You have - in this thread the Kalam. The first premise is not probabilistic. You can tell by the use of the word 'everything' that it is an absolute claim.

All right then....."It is highly probable that nothing pops out of nothing and therefore it is highly probable that everything that begins has a cause...........The Vladam cosmological argument.

[wigginhall]

My memory is that the first premise used to be described as a self-evident truth, but this collapsed, when people started to require evidence for it.  As NS states it hits against the induction issue.  There are other problems, e.g., what is the cause of a tree?  When does something begin?  Collapse of kalam.