Why KCA is a poor argument.

Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Why KCA is a poor argument.

 p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

 p2. The universe began to exist.

 C. The universe has a cause.

This argument has prevailed through the ages because of its apparent self evidence.  I want to start a discussion on why this argument fails.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
We are only human

and so we search for a cause.  There is thunder and lighting - Thor, Thunderbird, Zeus - take your pick of causes.  And now we have the understanding of weather, jet streams, cold and warm fronts, and we have a more scientific cause of thunderstorms. 

The various philosophical arguments, that often wind up at quantum mechanics, do not appeal.  And so I think I will fall back on statistics class - CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.  Which leads to a common logical fallacy called false correlation:

 

http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2005/01/examples-of-false-cause-correlation.html wrote:

The advocate asserts that there is a causal link between phenomena, when the link is only apparent rather than real.

 

And so you have people who want an ultimate cause selecting their favorite cause without any link, evidence supporting such a link, any basis for calculating a correlation, or any logic but wishful thinking.  There likely is an ultimate cause of the universe and/or the big bang, but the cause will probably be something other than imaginary superhero(s).  The cause may in fact be some facet of quantum mechanics, in which case I will have to take someone else' word for it.  I have tried, but my vision of same is limited and therefore, I believe my understanding to be limited as well.

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
My problem with it

I get stuck at what 'begin to exist' would mean 'before' time exists, so P2 (the universe began to exist) seems undefined.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:I get stuck at what

x wrote:

I get stuck at what 'begin to exist' would mean 'before' time exists, so P2 (the universe began to exist) seems undefined.

I'm familiar with the counter arguments.  

Question begging.

First premise p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.  This implicitly breaks everything into "things that begin to exist" and "things that do not begin to exist".  The argument goes on to prove that something which did not being to exist is the cause for the universe.  But this set only has one element, namely the cause.

Non Sequitur / Category fallacy / fallacy of composition

p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.  This implies the EVERY ONE thing begins to exist, but the second premise p2. The universe began to exist, does not represent one of those things.  Meaning that the universe is the set of all things, not a thing itself.  Russell paradox regarding sets clearly shows how you cannot attribute a property of the elements of the set, to the set itself.   The conclusion becomes a non sequitur.  

The question that you have raised, regarding causation being a temporal phenomena.  Meaning you have the universe in state A, you have causation in the vector dirrection of time, and then the universe is in state B.  But time is a property of the universe, therefore causation is a property of the universe.  

The fact is, that, no matter how much you rationalize it, it is obvious that the universe exists.  Two conclusions follow, either the universe is eternal, or it began.  The fact that it began doesn't circumvent the whole ambiguity of "eternal".  

I often find myself thinking of the quantum foam necessitating the conditions for something like a virtual particle-antiparticle pair to appear.  Is it eternal?  It boggles the mind really, to stop wondering about it and just claim that god did it is beyond idiotic.  To give it properties like omni-anything seems trivially stupid and insignificant.  

But what if logic breaks down in a singularity because the laws of physics breaks down.  

Disclaimer (I have had about 2 glasses of wine).

Logic operates due to the laws of physics, in a singularity, the laws of physics break down.  What if logic breaks down also?  We may not just be physically unable to find an answer, but also unable to logically arrive at an answer.  It is simply a big unknown.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
I think I have absorbed that

Ktulu wrote:

Non Sequitur

p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.  This implies the EVERY ONE thing begins to exist, but the second premise p2. The universe began to exist, does not represent one of those things.  Meaning that the universe is the set of all things, not a thing itself.  Russell paradox regarding sets clearly shows how you cannot attribute a property of the elements of the set, to the set itself.   The conclusion becomes a non sequitur.  

Those arguments are fairly familiar to me and strike me as sensible. A big problem with the KCA is indeed the unjustified assumptions about what happens in a singularity.

The Non Sequitur objection re Russell's Paradox and the universe being not a thing, but a set of things is not familiar to me. Being a slow thinker, I'll have to mull over that one for a bit.

When I have sussed that, this KCA refutation thread can then be neatly filed away in my big document of atheist apologetics.

Wine is lovely.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
According to Quantum Theory,

According to Quantum Theory, only things that have a non-zero net energy content require  a 'cause'. This does not necessarily apply to our universe, because it is currently understood by science that the positive energy equivalent of matter and most forms of energy is balanced out by the negative energy of gravitational potential energy.

Even if you don't accept this, something that 'just exists', and always has, still requires an explanation for why it is a necessary consequence of the total structure of reality, especially if it is a non-trivial aspect of 'what is', such as an super-powerful being of some kind.

Also remember that even an infinite sequence of cause-effect does not require infinite time or space if each cause-effect is lesser than the next, so 'infinite regress' is only a problem if you assume causes cannot be less in any sense than what they cause, which is not necessary.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:p1. Everything

Ktulu wrote:

p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.  This implies the EVERY ONE thing begins to exist, but the second premise p2. The universe began to exist, does not represent one of those things.  Meaning that the universe is the set of all things, not a thing itself.  Russell paradox regarding sets clearly shows how you cannot attribute a property of the elements of the set, to the set itself.   The conclusion becomes a non sequitur.  

 

Actually, this makes a lot of sense to me.  A set of rabbits means that you have a collection of rabbits but the collection of rabbits is not a rabbit.  Ha!!

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Ktulu wrote:p1.

cj wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.  This implies the EVERY ONE thing begins to exist, but the second premise p2. The universe began to exist, does not represent one of those things.  Meaning that the universe is the set of all things, not a thing itself.  Russell paradox regarding sets clearly shows how you cannot attribute a property of the elements of the set, to the set itself.   The conclusion becomes a non sequitur.  

Actually, this makes a lot of sense to me.  A set of rabbits means that you have a collection of rabbits but the collection of rabbits is not a rabbit.  Ha!!

Another way of looking at it - a herd of animals can "begin to exist" just by individual animals gathering together. No 'creation' event required.

Or a star can 'begin to exist' when sufficient atoms of hydrogen get drawn together for their mutual attraction to hold them together.

Even if the Universe had  a 'cause', the KCM doesn't establish why that 'cause' can only be something with the attributes which would justify calling it a 'god'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 312
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
The Kalam argument is a

The Kalam argument is a simple god of the gaps argument. I'll give it that it's a unique gap, because the gap has an ending, but we don't have a beginning point on the gap either. Everything humanity has EVER observed has been, in some way, evidence for the big bang. If someone committed a cosmological crime before it, well there is no evidence left. BEST way to wipe everything clean. 

Great idea for a thread, however, as the more we can educate ourselves on these issues, the better off we can be when drawn into an argument. 

All I will throw into the hat is, it's important to point out to anybody who makes this argument that:

A. This doesn't prove anything. At most, it makes a suggestion, because of our lack of knowledge on the matter, and

B. When you posit a supernatural explanation, given our concrete knowledge on the supernatural (if supernatural forces exist, we know NOTHING about them), you can't automatically pre-suppose that it means Yahweh. You can't pre-suppose Allah either. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is on absolutely equal footing here. A team of gods has equal weight. The potential beings you could hold responsible for this creation are endless. Unless you mount a legitimate argument as to why your god is any more plausible than any other god, this argument can't get off the ground. 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


SlykRyk (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
What caused god...infinite

What caused god...infinite regression. Argument is dead before it gets started.


bismilah
TheistTroll
Posts: 18
Joined: 2012-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I'm familiar

Ktulu wrote:

I'm familiar with the counter arguments.  

Question begging.

First premise p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.  This implicitly breaks everything into "things that begin to exist" and "things that do not begin to exist".  The argument goes on to prove that something which did not being to exist is the cause for the universe.  But this set only has one element, namely the cause.

While it may be true that there is only one thing that didn't begin to exist (i.e., God), that is certainly not implicit in the argument.  In fact, throughout the Middle Ages, it was commonly believed that both the universe and God didn't have a beginning, but that God sustained the universe's existence in an eternal causal relationship; hence, you can believe that the first premise of the KCA is true even if you do not believe that God is the only eternal thing.  So you are wrong in assuming that the set of uncaused things necessarily contains one element; there are possible worlds where this is not the case.  

But let's assume that it is true that there's necessarily only one uncaused thing; does the argument thus beg the question?  It doesn't seem to me to be the case.  Begging the question is when you have to assume the truth of the conclusion in order to affirm the truth of a particular premise.  For example, the following argument begs the question:

1) Either God exists, or 2 + 2 = 7.

2) It is not the case that 2 + 2 = 7.

3) Therefore, God exists.  

To believe that (1) is true, you have to also believe that (3) is true.  This in no way resembles the KCA.  You can partition objects according to whether they began or didn't begin without believing that God exists; in fact, for the longest time, most atheists believed that the universe was just eternal.

Quote:
Non Sequitur / Category fallacy / fallacy of composition

p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.  This implies the EVERY ONE thing begins to exist, but the second premise p2. The universe began to exist, does not represent one of those things.  Meaning that the universe is the set of all things, not a thing itself.  Russell paradox regarding sets clearly shows how you cannot attribute a property of the elements of the set, to the set itself.   The conclusion becomes a non sequitur.  

To assume that the universe is the set of all things either begs the question, or misunderstands the meaning of "universe." "Universe" in science refers to the totality of space, time, matter and energy; it does not refer to the realm of existence itself.  If it did, then of course it couldn't begin to exist.  If you wish to say that space, time, matter and energy is all that there is, then you need to defend that; how do you know this is the case?  And how do you deal with the Friedmann-Lemaitre model of the universe, which includes the singularity? 

Quote:
The question that you have raised, regarding causation being a temporal phenomena.  Meaning you have the universe in state A, you have causation in the vector dirrection of time, and then the universe is in state B.  But time is a property of the universe, therefore causation is a property of the universe.  

This is not correct.  The idea that causality requires time is a Humean idea that exists today only by a scientific reinterpretation of the word "causality" as predictability according to law.  However, in philosophy, which is the discipline which deals directly with causality qua metaphysical principle, causality is understood independently from time--and this has been the case since antiquity.  Aristotle noted several different senses of the term, but even he agreed that causal relationships need not be a case of one event following another in time. 

Quote:
The fact is, that, no matter how much you rationalize it, it is obvious that the universe exists.  Two conclusions follow, either the universe is eternal, or it began.  The fact that it began doesn't circumvent the whole ambiguity of "eternal".  

"Eternal" is hardly ambiguous; it means without beginning and end.  And so if you are willing to admit that the universe began, then you grant that it is not eternal.  A word doesn't become ambiguous simply because you wish to add to it a meaning which it never had.

Quote:
But what if logic breaks down in a singularity because the laws of physics breaks down.  

If the universe had a beginning, then it wouldn't have began in accordance with the laws of physics.  The laws of physics are restricted to the universe as a domain.  The singularity is not a physical state of the universe; it's an imagined mathematical point of infinite density, a theoretical (not actual) state of the universe where its curvature maxes out.  Physicists, such as PCW Davies, call it "nothing" because that's what it is; it's a theoretical, actual infinity, which plausibly cannot exist in reality.

Quote:
Logic operates due to the laws of physics, in a singularity, the laws of physics break down.  What if logic breaks down also?  We may not just be physically unable to find an answer, but also unable to logically arrive at an answer.  It is simply a big unknown.

No, logic has nothing to do with the laws of physics.  In fact, the laws of physics require logic in order to be codified in the first place.  It's not as if "1 + 1 = 7" was true before the universe turned a certain age.  


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I'll reply to this when I

I'll reply to this when I get a bit of time. Smiling

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
bismilah wrote:While it may

bismilah wrote:

While it may be true that there is only one thing that didn't begin to exist (i.e., God), that is certainly not implicit in the argument.  In fact, throughout the Middle Ages, it was commonly believed that both the universe and God didn't have a beginning, but that God sustained the universe's existence in an eternal causal relationship; hence, you can believe that the first premise of the KCA is true even if you do not believe that God is the only eternal thing.  So you are wrong in assuming that the set of uncaused things necessarily contains one element; there are possible worlds where this is not the case.  

But let's assume that it is true that there's necessarily only one uncaused thing; does the argument thus beg the question?  It doesn't seem to me to be the case.  Begging the question is when you have to assume the truth of the conclusion in order to affirm the truth of a particular premise.  For example, the following argument begs the question:

1) Either God exists, or 2 + 2 = 7.

2) It is not the case that 2 + 2 = 7.

3) Therefore, God exists.  

To believe that (1) is true, you have to also believe that (3) is true.  This in no way resembles the KCA.  You can partition objects according to whether they began or didn't begin without believing that God exists; in fact, for the longest time, most atheists believed that the universe was just eternal.

Ok, so you are saying that even though your premise implies that ONLY ONE THING DID NOT BEGIN TO EXIST, or in other words: 1. Everything that begins to exist, EXCEPT FOR GOD, has a cause.  is not begging the question?  

That is the very definition of the fallacy.  You stating that it was incorrect common knowledge through the middle ages that both god and the universe were eternal does absolutely nothing for your argument what so ever.

bismilah wrote:

To assume that the universe is the set of all things either begs the question, or misunderstands the meaning of "universe." "Universe" in science refers to the totality of space, time, matter and energy; it does not refer to the realm of existence itself.  If it did, then of course it couldn't begin to exist.  If you wish to say that space, time, matter and energy is all that there is, then you need to defend that; how do you know this is the case?  And how do you deal with the Friedmann-Lemaitre model of the universe, which includes the singularity? 

Hmmm.  Ok  Let's define some terms then. I'll go first.  

Existence = shape + location.

Secondly, I'm not familiar with F-L cosmological model, except that it is used by Craig L.  The little reading that I've done on it seems to be purely technical.  Do you care to elaborate?

What else is the universe if not the set of all things?  Wiki defines it as "The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists or is known to exist".  Oxford Dictionary defines it as "1 (the universe) all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. ".  What definition are you using that shows I misunderstand the universe is the set of all things?

bismilah wrote:

This is not correct.  The idea that causality requires time is a Humean idea that exists today only by a scientific reinterpretation of the word "causality" as predictability according to law.  However, in philosophy, which is the discipline which deals directly with causality qua metaphysical principle, causality is understood independently from time--and this has been the case since antiquity.  Aristotle noted several different senses of the term, but even he agreed that causal relationships need not be a case of one event following another in time. 

REALLY? wow, you use Aristotle's torture of causality to... "demonstrate" that it is NOT a temporal phenomena? I would ask you to PLEASE elaborate because I believe you are quite wrong. 

bismilah wrote:

"Eternal" is hardly ambiguous; it means without beginning and end.  And so if you are willing to admit that the universe began, then you grant that it is not eternal.  A word doesn't become ambiguous simply because you wish to add to it a meaning which it never had.

The only "eternal" thing I can think of is an attribute of an even more ambiguous concept namely god.  Do you care to give me an example of an "eternal" thing? 

bismilah wrote:

If the universe had a beginning, then it wouldn't have began in accordance with the laws of physics.  The laws of physics are restricted to the universe as a domain.  The singularity is not a physical state of the universe; it's an imagined mathematical point of infinite density, a theoretical (not actual) state of the universe where its curvature maxes out.  Physicists, such as PCW Davies, call it "nothing" because that's what it is; it's a theoretical, actual infinity, which plausibly cannot exist in reality.

hehe, you haven't defined exists.  I do, however, agree with you, but not for the same reasons that you think.  I would love to have you explain to me the double slit experiment as a "theoretical (not actual)" state where the photon doesn't "exist" Smiling.  I think we better leave this one alone because it can get really philosophical (read full of shit) really quickly.

bismilah wrote:

No, logic has nothing to do with the laws of physics.  In fact, the laws of physics require logic in order to be codified in the first place.  It's not as if "1 + 1 = 7" was true before the universe turned a certain age.  

Actually, outside a physics paradigm, modern logic would not have advanced past a theoretical primitive interpretation.  But what I actually meant was that fundamentally, logic requires the arrow of time and overall state of the universe (which works according to the laws of physics), in order to be coherent.  Otherwise 1+1 would equal 7... or 12.3  depending on what non physical universe you live in, and hence logic would fail.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Don't bother Ktulu, as soon

Don't bother Ktulu, as soon as you beat him or see past his bullshit he will throw a little hissy fit. Yawn.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


bismilah
TheistTroll
Posts: 18
Joined: 2012-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Ok, so you are

Ktulu wrote:

Ok, so you are saying that even though your premise implies that ONLY ONE THING DID NOT BEGIN TO EXIST, or in other words: 1. Everything that begins to exist, EXCEPT FOR GOD, has a cause.  is not begging the question?  

No, you fucking moron.

I never said that the premise implies that only one thing did not begin to exist; I said that even if it was true that only one thing didn't begin to exist, that truth is not implicit in the argument.  And given that throughout history people believed in more than one eternal thing, and at the same time affirmed this very argument (formalized by Al Ghazali, prior to Dr. Craig), clearly this is not implied by the first premise.

Quote:
Existence = shape + location.

Uh, no.  That's not the definition of existence, you fucking moron.  From dictionary.com:

ex·ist·ence

  [ig-zis-tuhns]  Show IPAnoun1.the state or fact of existing being.

Quote:
Secondly, I'm not familiar with F-L cosmological model, except that it is used by Craig L.  The little reading that I've done on it seems to be purely technical.  Do you care to elaborate?

You fucking moron.  This is the FL model, moron:

Quote:
What else is the universe if not the set of all things?  Wiki defines it as "The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists or is known to exist".  

You fucking moron.

u·ni·verse 
n.1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe

Quote:
REALLY? wow, you use Aristotle's torture of causality to... "demonstrate" that it is NOT a temporal phenomena? I would ask you to PLEASE elaborate because I believe you are quite wrong.

How much of a fucking moron are you going to be?  Do you see anything about time here?  Cause and effect in terms of temporality didn't come about until Hume.

Causality (also referred to ascausation[1]) is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[2]

In common usage, causality is also the relationship between a set of factors (causes) and a phenomenon (the effect). Anything that affects an effect is a factor of that effect. A direct factor is a factor that affects an effect directly, that is, without any intervening factors. (Intervening factors are sometimes called "intermediate factors".) The connection between a cause(s) and an effect in this way can also be referred to as a causal nexus.

Though the causes and effects are typically related to changes or events, candidates include objectsprocessesproperties, variables, facts, and states of affairs; characterizing the causal relationship can be the subject of much debate.

The philosophical treatment on the subject of causality extends over millennia. In the Western philosophical tradition, discussion stretches back at least to Aristotle, and the topic remains a staple in contemporary philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Quote:
The only "eternal" thing I can think of is an attribute of an even more ambiguous concept namely god.  Do you care to give me an example of an "eternal" thing?

Fuck you, you fucking moron.

You started out saying that "eternal" is ambiguous; what else does it mean besides having no beginning or end?  A lot of people used to believe that the universe was eternal; was it ambiguous then as well?

Quote:
hehe, you haven't defined exists.  I do, however, agree with you, but not for the same reasons that you think.  I would love to have you explain to me the double slit experiment as a "theoretical (not actual)" state where the photon doesn't "exist" Smiling.  I think we better leave this one alone because it can get really philosophical (read full of shit) really quickly.

FUCK YOU!

Quote:
Actually, outside a physics paradigm, modern logic would not have advanced past a theoretical primitive interpretation.  But what I actually meant was that fundamentally, logic requires the arrow of time and overall state of the universe (which works according to the laws of physics), in order to be coherent.  Otherwise 1+1 would equal 7... or 12.3  depending on what non physical universe you live in, and hence logic would fail.

FUUUUUCK!!!!

MATHEMATICS IS NOT FUCKING CONTINGENT UPON THE BEHAVIOR OF THE NATURAL FUCKING WORLD, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!!  1 + 1 =2 WHETHER TIME MOVES FORWARD, BACKWARDS, SIDEWAYS, OR UPWARDS.  FUCK FUCK FUCK.  YOU ARE THE BIGGEST FUCKING MORON IN THE HISTORY OF FUCKING MORONS THAT HAVE EVER EXISTED.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 lol

 lol


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
no, actually, in

no, actually, in mathematics, in a base 2, 1+1 = 10.  That is because, like logic, mathematics is a subjectively predefined system.  You define base 10 as a sequence of digits from 0-9 and then you get 1+1=2 you define it as a sequence of digits from 0 to 1, 1+1 = 10 (read as one and 0, or one 2 and one 0).

Mathematics is not an example of your mumbo jumbo "metaphysical" system.  It is a tautological, subjectively assigned system, you moron. Smiling

You have no idea what the FL model shows you idiot, you just parrot something Craig Lane has regurgitated.  You have no clear understanding of it, that is why you chose to post a picture instead of an elaboration.  I would spend more time researching it if it had more merit other then being mentioned in some creationist propaganda paper. 

Shape= outside boundary determining an object from the rest of the universe.

Location = coordinates as well as implication of observer defining the coordinates.

an object can be said to exist if it has a shape and a location fundamentally.  I'm sure you have a better understanding of physics, however.  Please enlighten us.

The double slit experiment is the foundation of the uncertainty principle, which in turn underlines quantum mechanics.  Since you mentioned something about a singularity not existing, it was a relevant question.  FUCK YOU is not a valid answer and shows that you fail to understand the implication of your idiocy, as well as the underlying principles of things you claim to understand. 

Keep reading on the shit you copied and pasted from wiki on causation, maybe you will learn something.  Find me one single modern philosopher or physicist that doesn't define causality in terms of time relation and will have won on this one single point.  Even Craig Lane goes through some impressive mental gymnastics (failed miserably) to overcome this one aspect of causality.  For you to claim that a poor understanding of time dismisses this is laughable.

You failed on every single point, thank you for trying. 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Don't

ThunderJones wrote:

Don't bother Ktulu, as soon as you beat him or see past his bullshit he will throw a little hissy fit. Yawn.

good call Smiling lol 

Edit : I've had 2 glasses of wine, I apologize for my poor form and getting down to his level.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
bismallah

bismallah wrote:

FUUUUUCK!!!!

MATHEMATICS IS NOT FUCKING CONTINGENT UPON THE BEHAVIOR OF THE NATURAL FUCKING WORLD, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!!  1 + 1 =2 WHETHER TIME MOVES FORWARD, BACKWARDS, SIDEWAYS, OR UPWARDS.  FUCK FUCK FUCK.  YOU ARE THE BIGGEST FUCKING MORON IN THE HISTORY OF FUCKING MORONS THAT HAVE EVER EXISTED.

Looks like somebody started to take this a little too personal. Hmm, perhaps they are either off their meds or maybe suspect their arguments are not absolute ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:ThunderJones

Ktulu wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Don't bother Ktulu, as soon as you beat him or see past his bullshit he will throw a little hissy fit. Yawn.

good call Smiling lol 

Edit : I've had 2 glasses of wine, I apologize for my poor form and getting down to his level.

I'm not sure why he even bothers making some real replies mixed in with his idiocy. It's pretty funny, really.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10349
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Scoreboard Originality: bism

Scoreboard

Originality:
bismilah uses the exact same insult every single time, to excess.
ktulu never repeats an insult, and uses less of them to keep his post on topic.

Point: ktulu.

Presentation:
bismilah resorts to caps lock, ruining any actual point that may have been made by making an entire paragraph unreadable to anyone above the age of 16.
ktulu uses proper paragraphs and grammar, making for an easy read.

Point: ktulu

Humour:
bismilah has a fit of rage in response to a simple post.
ktulu lol's.

Point: ktulu

A clear victory.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10349
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Ktulu wrote: p1. Everything

Ktulu wrote:

 p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

 p2. The universe began to exist.

 C. The universe has a cause.

This argument has prevailed through the ages because of its apparent self evidence.  I want to start a discussion on why this argument fails.

My position, beyond the standard refutations, is that it presupposes the beginning of the universe, which has not and will likely never be proven conclusively. The big bang certainly happened, but who's to say there wasn't already a universe when it happened? We'd have no way of knowing, as the big bang erased any evidence of anything before it.
The 13 odd billion year time frame since it happened doesn't help either. More than half the universe is permanently invisible to us, unless we develop a way to travel to places faster than light. Significantly faster, for that matter.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: p1. Everything

Ktulu wrote:

 p1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

 p2. The universe began to exist.

 C. The universe has a cause.

This argument has prevailed through the ages because of its apparent self evidence.  I want to start a discussion on why this argument fails.

There is no cause for existence.

P1 is false.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2755
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Another way

BobSpence wrote:

Another way of looking at it - a herd of animals can "begin to exist" just by individual animals gathering together. No 'creation' event required.

Or a star can 'begin to exist' when sufficient atoms of hydrogen get drawn together for their mutual attraction to hold them together.

Even if the Universe had  a 'cause', the KCM doesn't establish why that 'cause' can only be something with the attributes which would justify calling it a 'god'.

This problem with "faith" based arguments is that they all say "something must have existed before..." because with out the "before" they have no god.

When I finally realized that "before" is only a state or condition, then I realized that every thing in this Universe existed before today as well before the big bang. The difference is that the state of that which we call our Universe is always changing. It's a little bigger today than it was yesterday, but 14.6 billion years ago it was much smaller.

So what is "before" the big bang?

Matter and energy is different forms.

I suspect that one day each of us will be come like gods. We will create shit in our minds and do shit that now we can't even imagine now.

Then we will get bored with all the power and we will destroy ourselves and blend back in to the "expanse" of energy from which we came because we will know that existing is not just one state, it is countless.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I suspect that one day each of us will be come like gods. We will create shit in our minds and do shit that now we can't even imagine now.

 

Sounds like the Culture's Infinite Fun Space..

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_(The_Culture)

 

 

 


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Another way of

 

Quote:
Another way of looking at it - a herd of animals can "begin to exist" just by individual animals gathering together. No 'creation' event required.

Or a star can 'begin to exist' when sufficient atoms of hydrogen get drawn together for their mutual attraction to hold them together.

Even if the Universe had  a 'cause', the KCM doesn't establish why that 'cause' can only be something with the attributes which would justify calling it a 'god'.

The way I see it, we're intermixing philosophy with physics. A herd of animals presupposes that the word herd, and it's definition, already exists. To call a group of animals standing together a herd, you have to already know what a herd is. The herd was "created" in a sense because somebody had to create the term "herd" to describe the group of animals standing together. In a sense, the herd was created because the term was created the first time somebody observed a group of animals standing together.

Secondly, even if the word "herd" is used to describe the group of animals standing together, and the herd itself is not that which was created or caused, what caused the animals to form a herd? What created the animals that form the herd?

As for the star analogy, you answered your own question. The cause of the star beginning to exist is the physical forces that attracted and held together the atoms that form it. This still doesn't answer what created the atoms, or what created the force that caused them to form together to create a star, or alternately, why does this force cause these particular atoms to attract one another and form a star?

As for the "cause" being called "god", it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be tangible and personified. It simply is.

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Reverend Wells wrote:The way

Reverend Wells wrote:

The way I see it, we're intermixing philosophy with physics. A herd of animals presupposes that the word herd, and it's definition, already exists. To call a group of animals standing together a herd, you have to already know what a herd is. The herd was "created" in a sense because somebody had to create the term "herd" to describe the group of animals standing together. In a sense, the herd was created because the term was created the first time somebody observed a group of animals standing together.

Secondly, even if the word "herd" is used to describe the group of animals standing together, and the herd itself is not that which was created or caused, what caused the animals to form a herd? What created the animals that form the herd?

As for the star analogy, you answered your own question. The cause of the star beginning to exist is the physical forces that attracted and held together the atoms that form it. This still doesn't answer what created the atoms, or what created the force that caused them to form together to create a star, or alternately, why does this force cause these particular atoms to attract one another and form a star?

As for the "cause" being called "god", it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be tangible and personified. It simply is.

I think bob is trying to clear up the whole "create" ambiguity.  Creation, as we understand it, is rearranging certain matter in a different format, subject to the law of conservation of energy.  The way a theist would understand "create" is as if by magic.  It's more of a definition in terms, or a clarification.  

On a side note, I agree with you about the subjectivity of assigning definitions to different states of matter, and that of itself can be define as a creation process.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc