>> ^kir_mokum:
then truly nothing doesn't exist.


Then how is the Kalam cosmological argument invalid?

>> ^kir_mokum:

as far as i understand it the only thing that create something from nothing is in fact nothing.

http://videosift.com/video/A-Universe-From-Nothing-by-Lawrence-K
rauss-AAI-2009


What Dr Krauss is referring to when he says "nothing" is actually something..he changes the definition of that something many times throughout his book..sometimes calling nothing a quantum vacuum, or the laws of nature, or a condition that is lacking any matter or energy, but at no time is the "nothing" he is referring to purely nothing..it is always something. So there is no theory of how "nothing created everything".

Doesn't logic itself tell you that from nothing, nothing comes? The first cause must be eternal because if there ever was "nothing", that's all there ever would be.

>> ^kir_mokum:

too bad current scientific discoveries are taring the cosmological argument to small, laughable pieces.


Which discoveries would those be, kir_mokum?

1. An "eternal first cause" and/or "creator" does not in any way by default = a degree of intelligence and/or act of deliberate purpose and/or 'living' entity/mechanism.

2. Every-time an argument asserts the idea of an "eternal first cause" and/or "creator", said assertion holds no relativity to the likelihood/plausibility of a God.

KCA.. really?

"The kalam cosmological argument, for example, establishes an eternal, personal, transcendent first cause of the Universe".
No it doesn't. It's wordplay, deception and confusion/delusion, the only tools in which theological arguments have EVER been viewed as to hold a degree of legitimacy until met by intelligent humans who can see the patterns of speech. The use of formulated distractions in an attempt to validate an invalid proposition is deceit.
~Even if disputed, refer to 1st point. There is no argument for God's existence here.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:
- whatever begins to exist has a cause (premise 1)
- the universe began to exist (premise 2)
- the universe has a cause

The argument follows the following structure:

- if X, then Y
- X
- therefore Y

But alas, if we take a closer look, we can clearly see a MASSIVE sleight of hand in KCA.

Consider the arguments below and it will start to become clear what it is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- If someone is lying, they are not telling the truth
- My son is lying on his bed
- Therefore, my son is not telling the truth

OR

- whatever is not right is wrong
- my left leg is not right
- therefore my left leg is wrong

OR

- If it is bright, it gives off/reflects light
- My son is bright
- Therefore, my son gives off/reflects light
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see what just happened?

Even though, the 3 arguments above follow the logical structure of "If x, then Y, X, therefore Y", they are complete nonsense....

... because the words 'lying', 'right' and 'bright' change meaning in premise 1 and 2, rendering the arguments completely useless.

And this is exactly what is happening in KCA with the terms 'begins' and 'began'. The difference between 'i'+'S' and 'a' has a value that those who make this argument either try to pretend isn't there, or have simply been fooled by it themselves due to their lack of interest/attention of the subject or their desperation to justify their preference for psychological comfort in the face of human minds not having had the pressures to evolve to properly comprehend self-termination, due to their being no continuation of processing once the engine stops and the lights go out.


To explain the deception within KCA further and more specifically..

The phrase "begins to exist" changes meaning in premise 1 vs premise 2.

In premise 1, "begins to exist" is being used in the context of things coming into existence as a result of "REARRANGEMENT OF EXISTING MATTER/ENERGY".
E.g. things like cars, people, trees etc etc

Whereas.....

in premise 2, "began to exist" completely changes meaning to "THE ACTUAL CREATION OF MATTER AND ENERGY"

just like our examples above.......
'lying' as in deceiving somebody VS 'lying' as in lying down on a bed.
'right' as in what is correct VS 'right' as in which side of the road you drive on in the USA.
'bright' as in giving off light VS 'bright' as in being smart.

and..

'Begins' to exist as in rearrangement of matter energy VS 'began' to exist as in the actual creation of matter and energy.

The shift in meaning renders KCA completely useless.
Independent of the science, there is a logical flaw in the argument.

Even if premise 1 and premise 2 are 100% true, you cannot draw the logical conclusion because of the shift in meaning.

i.e.
- The sky is blue
- I drive a car
- Therefore I like to eat apples.

Premise 1 and 2 are true in the argument above but the conclusion is nonsensical, just like in KCA



For those who prefer visual explanations: 3:56 Mins/Secs (+ some decent music imo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkYkFw2X4mY

Note: The 6th description that gets dropped into the William Lane Craig description is meaningless in this video. Likely thrown in as a 'let's just give it to the believers-without-testable-evidence for the analysis' as often there's an attempt to claim 'morals' as God-dependent.. despite that small/large societies would have struggled to properly form in hunter+gather days AND hold long term stability without such a balancing mechanism being evolved along with them, to which is still evolving today in the political form of 'human rights' and 'humanitarianism'.

Credit for most of this breakdown of KCA to Mutantbass, used because it was articulated well with simplicity.
Modified for personal tastes and elaborations:
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=13352.0

>> ^spoco2:
I'm amazed that @shinyblurry can, with a straight face, (well, I assume he's not sniggering) suggest that it's inconceivable that while we've seen that when matter and anti-matter come together they cancel each other out and form 'nothing' the reverse cannot possibly happen.


Directing you to a general reply, here:

http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss-Something-from-Nothing?loadcomm=1#comment-1443305

>> ^spoco2:
And yet God 'just is'. You cannot fathom that something that we HAVE OBSERVED would seem to logically go the other way also, and yet are happy to accept a notion of an omnipotent bearded man existing for all eternity.... so just giving up on the concept of time and saying 'he just was, and is'.


No one has given up on the concept of time. The evidence indicates that time had an absolute beginning:

http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/stephen70/talks/swh70_vilenkin.pdf

If time had an absolute beginning, that means that whatever created the Universe is timeless (as well as spaceless, powerful, immaterial and transcendent). Meaning, the evidence points to an eternal first cause of the Universe. That is already matching up to a description of God and His attributes. Also, God is not a bearded man; you came to that conclusion because of religous imagery, not what scripture says. What scripture says is that God is a spirit.

>> ^spoco2:
I don't get how you think you have any point of argument. Sure, I can completely get that people can conceive that there is some higher power, that's fine. But to think there's any infinitesimally small shred of logic or reason contained in that belief that is any more reasoned than what science is coming up with is baffling.


I'm glad to hear that you can allow for belief in a higher power. Though, it doesn't sound like you are very familiar with the logical arguments for the existence of God. The kalam cosmological argument, for example, establishes an eternal, personal, transcendent first cause of the Universe.

>> ^spoco2:
You believe that, you also think it's your mission to convert others, but you know what? Trying to argue it out, thinking that you have some logical gotcha is just futile. You know the best way to bring people to your way of thinking? Be compassionate, lead by example, do good works, help others. DO NOT PREACH. Seriously, some of the nicest people I know actually have their own church, they run it, they created it. But they DO NOT preach AT ALL to us, they don't try to convert us at all. But they are helpful, kind, caring people who are wonderful to be around, and when they bow their heads and pray and make speeches thanking their lord during their birthday parties and other celebrations it doesn't grate, because it's not done in any way that's trying to rope in us unbelievers.


I agree with you, that a Christian should do good works. That is the fruit of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. However, Christians are also commanded by Jesus to preach the gospel. We are supposed to do both, not one or the other. There are specific, spiritual reasons for why this is so. Your friends sounds like excellent Christians, however, if you were to die tomorrow, and they had never told you the gospel, they will answer for that at the judgment seat of Jesus Christ. Christianity does not come by osmosis; faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

>> ^spoco2:
Please take that as a way to spread your word, Do Good Deeds. We like to watch videos like this because it's two people discussing some really deep questions and we like to know what scientists think about these things that are in their field of expertise. I would just as much like to watch a discussion between theologians about morality and differing religions and how they think their teachings fit in there. As long as it wasn't a case of 'if you don't believe in me you are doomed to hell', just 'I believe that following these commandments will lead to a better life', or 'I don't take the story of Noah to be a factual account, but more a parable with a lesson'.


There is a difference between having a debate, and telling someone the gospel. However, why would you expect someone to compromise, or water down what they believe? You've felt very comfortable in telling me exactly what you believe, and what I should be doing, and how I should be doing it, yet I must censor myself for the sake of your sensitive ears? Do you think I am going to obey God, or man?

It's only fallacious if I'm actually making an argument, which I wasn't. Just personal comments on the man's work.

I didn't go into specifics simply because of time, but if you like, I can give you a brief rundown of what I find objectionable about his work.

The KCA: Craig seems to think that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a very strong argument for theism, but it has numerous weaknesses. Craig argues for the impossibility of an actual infinite, whether in terms of a series in time, or of an infinitude of physical objects. His arguments in this regard are spectacularly weak. He believes, for instance, that the Hilbert's Hotel paradox shows that an actual infinite is absurd. This is not what the paradox shows, however--it only shows that an actual infinite would behave in unintuitive ways, breaking apart properties of numbers that we normally find together. Moreover, Craig provides no good reason to think that the first cause would have to be personal. He assumes that only a person could cause something to come from nothing, but doesn't back this up with any sound arguments.

Religious Epistemology: Craig asserts that philosophical arguments are neither necessary nor sufficient to have justified belief and genuine knowledge of the truth of Christianity--the light of the Holy Spirit is enough. He says this of himself as well, and is thus committed to his belief in Christianity regardless of any arguments that might be presented. He thus declares himself impervious to any argument that might vitiate Christianity--this is a profound philosophical failing. To declare that no conceivable argument can convince you away from your position is to declare the entire philosophical enterprise almost entirely purposeless with regard to that question.

The Resurrection: Craig uses Bayesian probability theory to argue for the likelihood of the resurrection, claiming that when the calculation of prior probability includes a belief in the existence of God, then the resurrection will be probable--and thus, the rejection of the resurrection by atheists just comes down to a dogmatic rejection based on a previously held belief. Craig is not the first to make this argument; Richard Swinburne first advanced it in the 70's. It is, however, a very bad argument. It only works if the "God" in question is in particular a Christian God to begin with. Not just any God will do, or the resurrection of Jesus is hardly more likely than the epiphany of Krishna or the revelations to Mohammad. But the specifically Christian notion of God was developed only out of belief in the resurrection in the first place. Thus, Craig's argument is largely circular.

^EndAll

OK, I'll refute the arguments:

1. Argument from Cosmology, also called the Kalam Argument:

* Everything that begins to exist has a cause
* The Universe began to exist
* Thus, the Universe had a cause

Wrong on both the premises. No one can say with certainty that everything that begins to exist has a cause because no one has ever observed anything beginning to exist. The universe is already all here with nothing beginning to exist at any place or time. Things simply go from one form to another, for example going from energy to mass in compliance with the famous E=mc².

Neither can anyone say that the universe began to exist. The Big Bang theory only says something about the universe back to a point a small fraction of time after the bang.

This argument falls because the premises are wrong.

2. The argument from Fine Tuning

Apart from the points Hitchens made and the point that we would have to live in a habitable universe in order to have this conversation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle), there are some promising naturalistic explanations for the supposed fine tuning of the universe as well. One of them is the Multiverse thesis which has some promise in finding supporting evidence.

Further, the common argument that if you change only one constant only a fraction you would end up with a universe unsupportive of life is unsound. They only talk about changing one constant at a time. If you run a simulation of multiple universes where every constant is changed randomly, you'll end up with 1 in 3 universes supporting something similar to stars if I remember correctly.

Keep in mind, as you read this response, that I've been drinking. Any errors, I hope, can be blamed on the pernicious evils of that blackgaurd Jack Daniels, whose intoxications cloud the minds of men, but (happily) sometimes open the thighs of women.

That said, I spoke briefly with someone from my department of study on the topic of Aquinas' proofs of God before my graduation ceremony (B.A. in Philosophy) this last Saturday.

I feel fairly confident in what I learned, since the individual I spoke to had spent a semester studying Aquinas at Oxford last year. He explained to me, after my mentioning the utter failure of Aquinas' Five Ways, that they were severely misunderstood by modern thinkers. As it turns out, Aquinas did not say that time, or even causality, cannot infinitely regress. That claim, which is simply false from a logical standpoint, was never stated by Aquinas. Indeed, he is famous for stating that, without faith, there is simply no reason to believe that the universe has not existed, as Aristotle claimed, forever, infinitely reaching into the past. (This was, of course, prior to Big Bang cosmology) I felt rather stupid when this was pointed out to me; it's such an obvious contradiction that I couldn't believe I had overlooked it. Aquinas certainly wouldn't have.

The version Dawkins proposes is actually the Kalam cosmological argument, not Aquinas'.

The version Aquinas presents is far closer to Leibniz's cosmological argument, which depends on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)--the claim that everything has a reason for its existing and being the way it is. Alcohol floods my brain ever stronger, so I can't hope to do justice to the argument. I shall leave it as an exercise for the reader. Suffice to say that, if one accepts the PSR, the existence of God ineluctably follows--or at least the existence of an Ultimate Reason for Everything, which amounts to the same thing.

Note that I have not claimed that the existence of the Abrahamic God is proven this way. Not only do I not believe in such a God, I do not believe that this kind of argument could prove such. Nor did Aquinas. Which is why he said it was a matter of faith.


In short, Dawkins fails because he utterly misunderstands Aquinas at a basic level. Which is somewhat forgivable, because everyone does. You have to understand Aristotle in order to understand Aquinas, and that is something that few attempt these days.