@kolooyinbo. I do not agree with u on d 'inconclusiveness' of d first premise.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Is that not demonstrable from reason alone? When u say proof, what would constitute that 'proof'?

Ok lemme stop here for now. We'll talk a lot about this first premise. First, pls read this article by Peter Kreeft and tell me what u think? http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm. Then we can move on

Quote>Everything that begins to exist has a cause? I'm on the right track? Everything before existence, God had a cause, then it must prove before word nothing existed-and after word it begins to exist with a cause.

God said: let there be light, and there was light--so the cause begins to exist.

ChokolateBoss:
@kolooyinbo. I do not agree with u on d 'inconclusiveness' of d first premise.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Is that not demonstrable from reason alone? When u say proof, what would constitute that 'proof'?

Ok lemme stop here for now. We'll talk a lot about this first premise. First, pls read this article by Peter Kreeft and tell me what u think? http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm. Then we can move on

brocab:
Quote>Everything that begins to exist has a cause? I'm on the right track? Everything before existence, God had a cause, then it must prove before word nothing existed-and after word it begins to exist with a cause.

God said: let there be light, and there was light--so the cause begins to exist.

Listen man, I'd really appreciate it if u stop quoting me and typing incoherent gibberish. U can go back to ur thread abt d people u believe are burning and will burn in hell. U'd fair better there.

ChokolateBoss:


Spot on! I don't understand how mentally sound pple can claim to refute d kalam argument. Its ok to not believe in Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha or Amadioha (since they don't logically follow from d argument) but its definitely not ok to spew d most ridiculous balderdash because they don't want to believe in a first cause.
Would invite an astronomer friend of mine to this thread.
Make I just dey read comments for now

@ Deepsight,
Kalam 's so - called argument is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
Philosophy gives us questions to ponder, but scientific inquiry uses observation, experimentation and analysis to peer open the mysteries of the universe to answer questions.

Science has affirmed over and over again that matter is simply condensed energy, and as such, particles of matter are eternally pregnant with infinite possiblities.
The Essence of life is itself embedded in the very fabric of matter.
Matter begets life, matter begets consciousness, matter begets mind.
There exists no single evidence to the contrary.

@ Deepsight,
I have tried before, but I will try again to give a brief and concise write up on how the brain percieves, organizes and distinguishes itself from what it percieves.
It is not a mystery.
It is simple scientific explanation of complex natural processes.
Mind is not a divine entity different from the physical space from whence it originates.
Mind is just an aglomeration of interactive information, the quanta.
When interactive information reaches a critical electromagnetic threshold of frequency, the quanta, by quantum mechanical processes, extends beyond its locality, beholds itself, and in the case of humans, begin to ponder its own existence.

I will try elaborate on these later.

Pity, it would have been nice for you to believe in Christ, and not your own gibberish. So your faery that begins that exist has no cause, so the cause cant begin because it has no existences.
Once a believer begins to believe in any cause, prove it don't exist.

ChokolateBoss:


Listen man, I'd really appreciate it if u stop quoting me and typing incoherent gibberish. U can go back to ur thread abt d people u believe are burning and will burn in hell. U'd fair better there.

brocab:
Quote>Everything that begins to exist has a cause? I'm on the right track? Everything before existence, God had a cause, then it must prove before word nothing existed-and after word it begins to exist with a cause.

God said: let there be light, and there was light--so the cause begins to exist.

If we take this position then what caused the cause. This has been the failure of ALL causal arguments for the last 2000 years or more.

ChokolateBoss:
@kolooyinbo. I do not agree with u on d 'inconclusiveness' of d first premise.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Is that not demonstrable from reason alone? When u say proof, what would constitute that 'proof'?

Ok lemme stop here for now. We'll talk a lot about this first premise. First, pls read this article by Peter Kreeft and tell me what u think? http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm. Then we can move on

The premise that everything that exists has a cause is certainly NOT demonstrable from reason alone. What caused the cause then leads to infinite regression.

This is where ALL causal arguments (this is one of them) have failed miserably over the last thousands of years. I might get time to read the article over the next few days (other projects have priority) IF it is not another attempt to justify a causal basis for the theory. The greatest minds of humanity have analysed this idea (the causal argument) and rejected it.

Don't elaborate on it here, open a new tread for it. And make it so simple that my 7 years old Nephew can understand. Build them from when they are young, don't expect that the children will grow and then be taught much later. They have sharper, fresh and untainted brains unlike ours wey don dey reach decay level. Abeg make am simple on a new tread.

plaetton:
@ Deepsight,
I have tried before, but I will try again to give a brief and concise write up on how the brain percieves, organizes and distinguishes itself from what it percieves.
It is not a mystery.
It is simple scientific explanation of complex natural processes.
Mind is not a divine entity different from the physical space from whence it originates.
Mind is just an aglomeration of interactive information, the quanta.
When interactive information reaches a critical electromagnetic threshold of frequency, the quanta, by quantum mechanical processes, extends beyond its locality, beholds itself, and in the case of humans, begin to ponder its own existence.

I will try elaborate on these later.

It's pointless to even try to explain the position then what caused the cause who was God's Father and His Father and His..

KoloOyinbo:


If we take this position then what caused the cause. This has been the failure of ALL causal arguments for the last 2000 years or more.

It's like asking who made the big bang faery? But Mr KoloOyinbo, after you heard the noise Chokolateboss was calling, you run after it, hoping to find some truth if God really exist.

So this is difficult, if your looking else where for your faith, you will never find it, as I said: I search the scriptures and studied with other religious groups, and the only thing was missing, was the power in the Holy Spirit.

They claim to have the Spirit without using it's power.

KoloOyinbo:


If we take this position then what caused the cause. This has been the failure of ALL causal arguments for the last 2000 years or more.

KoloOyinbo:
WOW! A lot of intertwining debates here!

My thoughts currently are running in three strands:

1. From a logical point of view we have a problem as the first premise requires proof.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause;

How can we prove this? Especially as the cause - a Creator - would then require a cause. And that cause also requires a cause - ad infinitum!

Ah dont worry about that. You see, this is not the Cosmological Argument, it is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. As to your concern, "God" is said to be uncaused. Note the careful wording "whatever begins to exist". The unmoved mover. Lol.

Special pleading anyone?

The kalam is a salad of assorted fallacies.

jayriginal:


Ah dont worry about that. You see, this is not the Cosmological Argument, it is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. As to your concern, "God" is said to be uncaused. Note the careful wording "whatever begins to exist". The unmoved mover. Lol.

Special pleading anyone?

How can anything begin without a trigger for it to so begin?

Do you imagine it more logical, sensible and scientific, to support the view or argument that things pop into existence uncaused, untriggered by anything at all. Just magically, yes?

Is this not the worst form of magical thinking which you and your ilk here so vociferously condemn the religions for?

Do the laws of motion and the laws of causality support this?
Do you recall that your refutations of these laws was only to suggest that they may not apply at a cosmic level which we have no access to and cannot determine? So on what basis really do you refute these simple propositions of logic and so vociferously condemn them?

If you are agnostic, is it not more sensible for you to quietly say that we do not know much about the totality of existence and leave it at that, rather than continuously refute everyday obvious logic based on that which - according to you - we do not know and cannot even know?

Is it not far and beyond more magical and fantastical to argue that it is conceivable for anything to begin or commence without a cause or trigger? Does it not run contrary to all that is known and observed and even logically inferable?

Anyhow, you and I have been down this path before and I suppose there is nothing that we can say to one another on the subject. You are free to regard the idea that things that begin require a cause as fallacy - just as I am free to know that you are the one being fantastical when you insinuate that anything may begin untriggered.

Not just fantasitical, but more incredulous and superstitious than the worst religionist out there.

The kalam is a salad of assorted fallacies.

You, and your ilk, are clearly subscribers to voodoo.

DeepSight:


How can anything begin without a trigger for it to so begin?

Do you imagine it more logical, sensible and scientific, to support the view or argument that things pop into existence uncaused, untriggered by anything at all. Just magically, yes?

Is this not the worst form of magical thinking which you and your ilk here so vociferously condemn the religions for?

Do the laws of motion and the laws of causality support this?
Do you recall that your refutations of these laws was only to suggest that they may not apply at a cosmic level which we have no access to and cannot determine? So on what basis really do you refute these simple propositions of logic and so vociferously condemn them?

If you are agnostic, is it not more sensible for you to quietly say that we do not know much about the totality of existence and leave it at that, rather than continuously refute everyday obvious logic based on that which - according to you - we do not know and cannot even know?

Is it not far and beyond more magical and fantastical to argue that it is conceivable for anything to begin or commence without a cause or trigger? Does it not run contrary to all that is known and observed and even logically inferable?

Anyhow, you and I have been down this path before and I suppose there is nothing that we can say to one another on the subject. You are free to regard the idea that things that begin require a cause as fallacy - just as I am free to know that you are the one being fantastical when you insinuate that anything may begin untriggered.

Not just fantasitical, but more incredulous and superstitious than the worst religionist out there.



You, and your ilk, are clearly subscribers to voodoo.

Could you give examples of things that "began to exist"?

DeepSight:


How can anything begin without a trigger for it to so begin?

Do you imagine it more logical, sensible and scientific, to support the view or argument that things pop into existence uncaused, untriggered by anything at all. Just magically, yes?

Is this not the worst form of magical thinking which you and your ilk here so vociferously condemn the religions for?

Do the laws of motion and the laws of causality support this?
Do you recall that your refutations of these laws was only to suggest that they may not apply at a cosmic level which we have no access to and cannot determine? So on what basis really do you refute these simple propositions of logic and so vociferously condemn them?

If you are agnostic, is it not more sensible for you to quietly say that we do not know much about the totality of existence and leave it at that, rather than continuously refute everyday obvious logic based on that which - according to you - we do not know and cannot even know?

Is it not far and beyond more magical and fantastical to argue that it is conceivable for anything to begin or commence without a cause or trigger? Does it not run contrary to all that is known and observed and even logically inferable?

Anyhow, you and I have been down this path before and I suppose there is nothing that we can say to one another on the subject. You are free to regard the idea that things that begin require a cause as fallacy - just as I am free to know that you are the one being fantastical when you insinuate that anything may begin untriggered.

Not just fantasitical, but more incredulous and superstitious than the worst religionist out there.



You, and your ilk, are clearly subscribers to voodoo.

I wont be baited into arguing. Your post up there did not address anything I wrote. The earlier you realise that you cannot prove the existence of God logically, the better for you.

EDIT:
Oh and Im also interested in your example of things that "began" to exist.

DProDG:


Could you give examples of things that "began to exist"?

jayriginal:

I wont be baited into arguing. Your post up there did not address anything I wrote. The earlier you realise that you cannot prove the existence of God logically, the better for you.
EDIT:
Oh and Im also interested in your example of things that "began" to exist.

Events.

Simple.

The OP presumes that the universe began to exist. I wonder what his reasons for this are.

^^^ Troublesome man, e ku ojo meta. Bawo ni?

---- Even if the universe did not begin (which anyhow, it did - regardless the semantics) - the event of the Big Bang began.
That event is still in occurrence as the universe continues to expand.

---- Now even if the universe did not begin - and even if we put aside the universe entirely - - ->
-> Events necessarily - by nature - begin.

Or they would not be events.

DeepSight:
^^^ Troublesome man, e ku ojo meta. Bawo ni?

---- Even if the universe did not begin (which anyhow, it did - regardless the semantics) - the event of the Big Bang began.
That event is still in occurrence as the universe continues to expand.

---- Now even if the universe did not begin - and even if we put aside the universe entirely - - ->
-> Events necessarily - by nature - begin.

Or they would not be events.

Events are simply tangets or inflection points of culminating processes, infinitely occuring natural processes.

Events don't begin. Events are just one point in a continuing string of processes that go on and on to infinity.

jayriginal:


Ah dont worry about that. You see, this is not the Cosmological Argument, it is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. As to your concern, "God" is said to be uncaused. Note the careful wording "whatever begins to exist". The unmoved mover. Lol.

Special pleading anyone?

The kalam is a salad of assorted fallacies.

Oh yes. It is clear the argument is fallacious from the first few statements. All causal arguments have failed over the millennia.

brocab:
It's like asking who made the big bang faery? But Mr KoloOyinbo, after you heard the noise Chokolateboss was calling, you run after it, hoping to find some truth if God really exist.
So this is difficult, if your looking else where for your faith, you will never find it, as I said: I search the scriptures and studied with other religious groups, and the only thing was missing, was the power in the Holy Spirit.
They claim to have the Spirit without using it's power.

Please stop making silly assumptions about why I do things. You are wrong (yet again) I wanted to see what (if any astronomy/cosmology they were quoting). I am also interested in any argument people put forward and to look at if they exhibit any logic. In this case (as I thought it would) it proved easy (about 90 seconds thought) to spot the flaws in the logic.

plaetton:

Events are simply tangets or inflection points of culminating processes, infinitely occuring natural process.

Events don't begin. Events are just one point in a continuing string of processes that go on and on to infinity.

wow. Just wow. I can't get over this. Events don't begin?

wow.

wow.

wow.

Please can you define the word "event"?

Jesus.
Even an inflection in a chain begins or it would not be an inflection at all.

This is so elementary and self evident that if you dispute it, it's best to just leave the matter.

Jesus.

I thought I had heard and seen the worst possible logic that anti-creation logic could spout. Apparently not.

Events don't begin.

Wow.

Smashing.

DeepSight:


How can anything begin without a trigger for it to so begin?

Do you imagine it more logical, sensible and scientific, to support the view or argument that things pop into existence uncaused, untriggered by anything at all. Just magically, yes?
Is it not far and beyond more magical and fantastical to argue that it is conceivable for anything to begin or commence without a cause or trigger? Does it not run contrary to all that is known and observed and even logically inferable?

What caused the cause? What caused the trigger?

ALL causal arguments fail on this point and have done so for thousands of years. They are taught to philosophy students in year one almost straight away as an example of flawed thinking. They end up in an infinite regression.

We simply do not and probably cannot know the answer. But we do know that the causal arguments are all false. It is disappointing to see so much time wasted here on a matter that students are taught and quickly see the flaw in.

DeepSight:


wow. Just wow. I can't get over this. Events don't begin?

wow.

wow.

wow.

Please can you define the word "event"?

Jesus.
Even an inflection in a chain begins or it would not be an inflection at all.

This is so elementary and self evident that if you dispute it, it's best to just leave the matter.

Jesus.

I thought I had heard and seen the worst possible logic that anti-creation logic could spout. Apparently not.

Events don't begin.

Wow.

Smashing.

We isolate special events for own convenience. In reality every event is just one part of a chain of other sequential events.

Rather than pontificating about the first cause, we should be investigating the chain of events that could have led to the big bang event.

And yes,it is entirely possible, even rational, to contemplate a reality without a beginning.

Please this thread to get a better idea of the current scientific position on this issue.

https://www.nairaland.com/2140751/newsflash-forget-bigbang-forget-creationism

KoloOyinbo:


The premise that everything that exists has a cause is certainly NOT demonstrable from reason alone. What caused the cause then leads to infinite regression.

This is where ALL causal arguments (this is one of them) have failed miserably over the last thousands of years. I might get time to read the article over the next few days (other projects have priority) IF it is not another attempt to justify a causal basis for the theory. The greatest minds of humanity have analysed this idea (the causal argument) and rejected it.

An infinite regression of actual causes is not possible.
I think there's sth u're missing.
The argument doesn't say "everything has a cause", as the "everything would include that which we call God.
The argument says "everything which began to exist has a cause". That's very different from "everything has a cause". Don't u see it?
God, by our defintion is that which causeless, hence didn't begin to exist.
By asking the question "who caused God?", then u're putting God in the category of things that are caused (which violates our definition of God). Asking who caused God is like asking "how do numbers smell?" Numbers are not in d category of things that have a smell. I could go further but I think Peter Kreeft has aptly summarized my points.

DeepSight:




Events.

Simple.

Events?

How long did it take for you to come up with that.

I drank water. When did that begin to exist?

Perhaps you might want to clarify precisely what you mean by events. There must be something in that water.

DeepSight:

Events.

Simple.

I asked for things that "began to exist" and not "occurred".

DeepSight:

Even if the universe did not begin (which anyhow, it did - regardless the semantics) - the event of the Big Bang began.
That event is still in occurrence as the universe continues to expand.
---- Now even if the universe did not begin - and even if we put aside the universe entirely - - ->
-> Events necessarily - by nature - begin.
Or they would not be events.

Shifting the goalpost to "events begin" is changing the argument altogether. If you decide to put 'God' as the initiator of the Big Bang, I falls into an even bigger god of the gaps fallacy than was initially and not to forget the special pleading.

ChokolateBoss:


An infinite regression of actual causes is not possible.
I think there's sth u're missing.
The argument doesn't say "everything has a cause", as the "everything would include that which we call God.
The argument says "everything which began to exist has a cause". That's very different from "everything has a cause". Don't u see it?
God, by our defintion is that which causeless, hence didn't begin to exist.
By asking the question "who caused God?", then u're putting God in the category of things that are caused (which violates our definition of God). Asking who caused God is like asking "how do numbers smell?" Numbers are not in d category of things that have a smell. I could go further but I think Peter Kreeft has aptly summarized my points.

Yes but the logic fails immediately!

Everything that began to exist therefore EXISTS!

So the argument relies on the presumption (with no shred of proof) that something can exist without a beginning. IF this is so then it could be the Universe as easily as it could be a Creator.

There are links with what are called the 'tautological' arguments for Gods existence. Which (a personal opinion) are some of the more esoteric arguments but also fail quite miserably as they fall into circular logic.

So far everything here is rather basic philosophy 101!

KoloOyinbo:


Yes but the logic fails immediately!

Everything that began to exist therefore EXISTS!

So the argument relies on the presumption (with no shred of proof) that something can exist without a beginning. IF this is so then it could be the Universe as easily as it could be a Creator.

There are links with what are called the 'tautological' arguments for Gods existence. Which (a personal opinion) are some of the more esoteric arguments but also fail quite miserably as they fall into circular logic.

So far everything here is rather basic philosophy 101!

You will soon hear about necessary and contingent things, things mutable and immutable.

jayriginal:


You will soon hear about necessary and contingent things, things mutable and immutable.

Sigh! So all the philosophers for and logicians of the last few thousand years are wrong! Well I never!

jayriginal:


You will soon hear about necessary and contingent things, things mutable and immutable.

For once I can find something useful on the web concerning this (I'm not a big fan of internet research for academic purposes - but that's just me)

"The Kalam Argument

Today a more sophisticated version of the cosmological argument is being propounded that connects early Islamic theology with current Big Bang cosmology. According to Kalam reasoning, infinity is just a concept: an actual infinity does not exist in reality. If the series of temporal events is infinite, we never could have traversed it to arrive at the current moment. Yet we have reached this moment; therefore, the series of events must have had a beginning. Today, cosmologists almost universally confirm that our observable universe began at a Big Bang, a singularity[1] that brought into existence not only matter and energy, but space and time as well.

Building on this, Christian philosophers such as William Lane Craig are promoting an up-to-date version of the cosmological argument that they think avoids the problems of earlier attempts:
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This may be seductive to those who already believe in a god; but to me, it seems suspicious. The clause "Everything that begins to exist" sounds artificial. It is not a phrase we hear outside the context of theistic philosophy. It appears to be an ad hoc construction designed to smooth over earlier apologetic efforts

Does Kalam Beg the Question?

The curious clause "everything that begins to exist" implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is equivalent to "everything except God has a cause." As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God's existence, and we are back to begging the question.

Where do theists obtain the idea in the first place that there is such a set as NBE? By what observations or arguments is the possibility of beginningless objects warranted? Certainly not via the cosmological argument, which simply assumes NBE; nor from science, which observes nothing of the sort. If they get their initial idea from a religious document or from "inner experience," their argument may be more presuppositionalist than evidentialist. [3]

To say that NBE must accommodate more than one item is not to say that it must contain more than one item. The set might actually contain only one of the eligible candidates. The cosmological argument could be made successful if it could be shown that NBE contains exactly one item from a plural set of possibilities, and if the winning candidate turns out to be a personal creator. The question of accommodation is not whether the set does not contain more or less than one item; it's whether it can not contain other than one. If it can not, then the argument is circular. It would be like a dictator staging an election that permits no other candidates but himself: it's rigged from the start. (I am indebted to Michael Martin for insights on this matter via personal email correspondence.)

Additionally, if the only candidate for NBE is God, then the second premise, "The universe began to exist," would reduce to "The universe is not God," again assuming what the argument is trying to prove. If NBE is synonymous with God, the argument looks like this:
1.Everything except God has a cause.
2.The universe is not God.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is logical, if not very useful. The circular reasoning is revealed when theists build from this point. Based on the above "universe has a cause" conclusion, Craig argues for a personal creator:


"We know that this first event must have been caused. The question is: How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? Why isn't the effect as co-eternal as the cause?

"It seems that there is only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to infer that the cause of the universe is a personal agent who chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation 'agent causation,' and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present."[4]

This appeal to a personal creator depends on the premise that "we know this first event must have been caused." However, if God is the only item allowed in NBE, the argument effectively (if not intentionally) begs the question. In order to avoid begging the question, theists must produce one or more real or hypothetical candidates other than God for NBE."


Interesting and reasonably well put!

A modification ought to be if everything remains equal, whatever begins to exist must have a cause.