Does the Kalām cosmological argument definitively prove that

I just realised something.
Is the deist belief in an impersonal creating God insufficient?

>>3137743
No because it fails to address where then god came from

>>3138139
Gods tend to be outside the laws of the universe because they created them, and thus can have no technical beginning or creation.

>>3137808
Insufficient for salvation under the bible, absolutely. The devil knows there is a God.

>>3138139
Outside of the creation.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

>>3139410

It's not accepted as a fact that the universe had a "beginning" though, it's accepted that the big bang occured but that in itself is not faultless evidence of an act of creation, just a change of state from singularity to expansion.

>>3139474
There are always fringe whackos that say the universe is God, that the universe is infinite, that their goal is to reunite themselves with the universe.

It's best to avoid such people.

Logically you cannot have an infinite regression behind you, or you would never be "here" "now".

Scientifically, the universe cannot be infinite or it would have achieved useless heat death eons ago.

>>3137743
>Does the Kalām cosmological argument definitively prove that God created the universe?

No. Even if it were a sound argument, all it would prove is that the Universe had a cause. It isn't sound, however, because it's nonsense to talk about what "caused" the Universe, since time itself is a property OF the Universe.

>>3139486
>Logically you cannot have an infinite regression behind you, or you would never be "here" "now".
how so?

>>3139410
>(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

Unproven.

>(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Unproven.

>(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.

True but unsound since 1&2 are unproven

>(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.

Question begging fallacy

>(5) God exists.

Doesn't even follow from the premises, all you could claim is that a God DID exist at some point, the argument says nothing at all about whether such a God still exists. But this is irrelevant since the whole argument rests on assumptions that are simply stated with no evidence and on a fallacious step (4).

>>3139398
>>3139410
>special pleading

>>3137743
To believe the KCA is true is to accept an anthropomorphic view of God

Absolutely heretical

>>3137743
What does the personal/impersonal part at the bottom mean?
>>3140029
explain senpai

Christians can only argue that a deistic god might exist.

The Bible is demonstrably false.

>>3137743
No. Even if you accept the premise our universe can't be infinite, that doesn't mean the cause of our universe should be assumed to be a conscious god entity. In fact there's reason to believe the preexisting cause of our universe wouldn't be conscious since consciousness, like our universe, is itself caused and has a beginning. A better candidate for this preexisting cause would be an eternal fluctuating space that sometimes spawns off universes like our own.

>>3139511
Because an infinite amount of time has not passed before this moment.....

>>3139512
Nothing physical contains within itself the genesis of its own existence.

You disbelieve cause and effect. How strange.

>>3139516
Special pleading for God is kind of standard.

He is God.

>>3140029
Jesus is God, and as fully man as though not God, and as fully God as though not man.

>>3140029
ڭت ڭس ېشترېمېلي ىھرھم ھند ڭ غھننوت بېلڭۈې يوۇ نېېد مې تو بھغك تىڭس غلھڭم ۇپ يوۇ ە

ەوددھمن اوولسڭى ىېرېتڭغ يوۇ ۋڭلل بۇرن ونې دھي ترۇست مې

>>3140047
Except of course you will be unable to demonstrate that the bible is false on any particular.

>>3140039
see >>3140067

>>3140057

How do you know?

>>3140059

Neither does god then

>inb4 he's special

>>3140080
How do you not?

>>3140087

I don't, but since i don't know I'm not going to commit myself to conclusions based on that ignorance

>>3137743
the conceit is attributing human agency and emotion to this nonsense word "god" in an attempt to justify organized religious policies

you are all victims of rhetoric

>>3140093
It's exactly your ignorance of the concept of infinity that is in question here.

You think that it's possible that an infinite amount of time has passed before this moment.

It is not.

>>3140125
God has revealed Himself through the bible, his prophets, and finally his only begotten Son.

You are the victim of the father of lies.

>>3140125

Not I, my fellow enlightened gentleman, for we have both rent assunder the veil of fallacious and superstitious discourse which continues to consume minds of lesser constitution.

jk i agree. Spinoza makes the same argument in the 'ethics' at length, very convincing imo.

>>3140147
superstitous kooks

>>3140145

Lot of big talkin for not a lot of proofs

>>3140147

Abraham?

>>3140085
Not him but....God's obviously not physical.

>>3140164

True, he's a historical and cultural construction only present in the minds on men

>>3140162
Oh, you just wanted the expanded proof. Why didn't you say so?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. The universe either had a beginning or it did not.

2. The universe had a beginning.

a) Philosophical arguments for the impossibility of transversing an actual infinite series of events.

b) The Big Bang Theory of the Universe postulates a beginning.

(1) This is the most widely recognized theory of the universe.

c) The second law of thermodynamics (entropy).

(1) The universe is running out of energy.

(2) If it had an infinite past, it would have run out by now.

3. The beginning of the universe was either caused or uncaused.

4. The beginning of the universe was caused.

a) Contra Hume, every event has a cause.

b) God is not an event.

c) One might hold that some events, like quantum events, don't need causes.

(1) If so, then this premise can be replaced with "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

>>3137743

>the universe by definition is *everything*
>nothing can be outside of everything
>the universe (everything) by definition contains all good
>there is no good outside of the universe (which contains all good) (everything)
>the universe is the ultimate good

golly gee

>>3140162
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an
actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of
events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal
regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of
the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive
addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events
is a collection formed by successive
addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of
past events cannot be actually
infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.

>>3140163

You don't know who your own father is. Sad. Many such cases.

File: SK.jpg (57KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 850x400px

>>3137743
>God
Seriously define god, you are taking the low hanging fruit here, as am I. There is no one stringent definition of god. And that exactly is the point of god.

We exist [something] created us, whether conscious or not. It's up to you if you think it was conscious, some sort of reasoning, or pure chaotic existence out of some form of events which we still may never be able to understand because it happened outside our existence, it could be totally outside the laws of this universe, so how can you know?

"god" 100% created us. All you need to do is have faith that god doesn't exist in the dogmatic religions of the abrahamic faiths or any that man has created, you are pretty sure you at least exist and something created you and that's really all you need to have faith.

>>3140180
If your universe is by definition "everything", then your definition is sorely lacking by not taking into consideration all of the things and beings outside of this universe.

>>3140188
Sure there is.

God is the Creator of this Universe; in other words, whoever created this Universe deserves the title "God".

>>3140189

The universe is everything, by definition there is nothing outside of everything. Try again.

>>3140189
>things and beings
>outside of this universe

>>3139410
>>3137743
On purely logical front, there's three problem I see. The assumption that universe has a beginning. The assumption that universe's existence lies upon an entity called God. Then there's the assumption that God doesn't have a beginning.

This works out perfect if you believe God exist and God is eternal. Then this argument fits in with this loaded argument.

>>3140191
who has the connotation of a being, the point is it might not be a conscious being.


At least you tried.

>>3139486
Saying that logically you cannot have an infinite regression, in an argument to prove the existence of God who is conventionally defined as an infinite being seems a bit self defeating. I don't think it's logical to assume humans can even comprehend the universe, it defies concepts like 'infinite regression'.

>>3140199
And you've checked outside of this universe for anything that exists out there, am I correct?

>>3140222
Yes.

God, angels, demons, heaven, hell.....maybe you've heard of some of these things?

>>3140224
It's either true or loaded. Either way, it holds.

>>3140241
Not at all. In Stephen Hawking's mind, the Law of Gravity is God, as he posits that the Law of Gravity could, and would, and did, cause the universe to exist.

>>3140263
God defies explanation; the place we live doesn't. We have all sorts of explanations for it.

>>3140271
ill bite
by what mechanics do this extrauniversal entities interact our own universe?

>>3140275
Why must the place we live not defy explanation? Gravity certainly defies it for the moment; it's very reasonable to assume humans cannot fully comprehend the nature of existence in it's entirety-- such as it's creation.

>>3140272
If its true, its not apparent. It could be true that there's an invisible teapot orbiting our sun. But I haven't made a valid argument for it yet. I haven't event proven it yet. Lets assume in my world view, teapots naturally orbits on every solar systems. In this case, when I make an argument that suggest "orbiting teapots must naturally exist, otherwise, the solar system wouldn't exist", this is a loaded argument. Now it could very well be true, given that my worldview says and requires that teapots orbit every solar system.

Take this as an analogy to your argument.

>>3140274
You are literally saying what I am saying. Please read more carefully.

>>3140241
>the point is it might not be a conscious being.
>the Law of Gravity is God

>mfw this is all because some cunt decided it'd be funny to call their god "God"
I really fucking hate this language sometimes. Imagine if some idiot called his dog "Dog", then acts like they're talking about his dog whenever someone talks about dogs in general

>>3140059

Prove it. Also, virtual particles say hi.

>>3140062
>its not a fallacy is I say it isn't!

Typical godfag """reasoning""". You """people""" aren't worth the shit you;re full of.

>>3140735
"Vibrations" on fields theory, like all "physical" things.

The term "physical" is unhelpful for accurate scientific purposes. Physicalists, like the immaterialists, are idealists. Idealism has no place for science.

>>3140780
>all this moronic blather

Top kek. You """people""" really are the dumbest niggers on the planet.

>>3137743
No, because it relies on an obsolete ontology of time (A-theory of time)

>>3140817

You can't expect a godcuck to understand anything beyond "HURR GOD DID IT XD", they're all clinically retarded, without exception.

File: ringtoss.png (74KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1200x1200px

The Kalam argument is wrong but no one here is addressing the biggest reason why. The reason the Kalam argument fails is simple--it depends on causality in a situation where causality does not apply.

Kalam states that God created the universe, and was the first cause. But causality doesn't just depend on an actor, it also depends on having something to act upon. All causality implies a subject and an object; a mover, and a moved. So the ex nihilo argument for beginning makes no sense, because it's illogical to act upon nothing. There would have had to already be something that existed that God would act upon, which then invalidates the assumption that there was a meaningful beginning from nothing.

tl;dr: Kalam fails because it assumes God was the first actor, but it implies that He acted upon nothing, which is fallacious because action requires something to act upon. QED.

>>3140865

Causality also requires TIME, something that did not exist before the Universe. God couldn't have "created" the Universe because that is an action, and you can't have action without time.

>>3137743
No. The Scholastics did it better anyway.

>>3140181
>>3140178

>whetever begins to exist

"Begins" is a mental construct we impose onto reality. Nothing begins or ends, these are only designations with no ultimate reality. Therefore the rest of the argument fails.

>>3140911

A better counter is to point out that NOTHING "begins" to exist, not that we have ever observed, it's always and only a re-arrangement of pre-existing matter and forces.

>>3140917

Yep ty

>>3140865
>implying cause and effect applies outside of space and time.

Cae to explain why you think that the creation of the universe is subject to the same law as said universe.

Plastic is hard, not the liquid super-heated form it is before it's hard plastic.

>>3141015

Because time is a quality OF the Universe, it doesn't exist "outside" the Universe.

Is there a point to be had about why God created the universe when he did and not say, 100 trillion years before?
That is, if God's creation was just a necessary consequence of his existence, it seems inconceivable that this transcendent and eternal zombie creator would create the universe at any point in time.
Does this mean that God needed to have a personality/'consciousness' to make the choice to create?
Are there any other reasons to believe that God needs to have a consciousness?

The belief in a mechanistic universe is incorrect STEM ideology. God exists regardless.
>>3137808
Deism is the most sickening sort of fence-sitting.

>>3141073

Proof?

>>3141031
Exactly? So if something so important as time does not exist outside of the universe, why are you placing principles (like cause and effect) onto the state known as "outside the universe"?

>>3140275
Existence does not bend to your Newtonian logic. You are wrong, accept that.

>>3141075
Proof doesn't exist, it is STEM ideology designed to self-justify.

>>3139486
That's only if energy cannot be created which, focen the existence of energy, is false.
>>3140057
Unfalsifiable. Even if the universe were finite, there would be logical (though not necessarily cosmological) causality after it "died" forever

>>3141081

Behold! The most not an argument of all time

>>3141106
Woops meant for>>3141084

>>3141106
>arguments are good because muh Newtonian (grEEK) logic sez so

Isn't using "everything has a cause" circular logic? If the universe is actually uncaused then that statement is not true.

>>3141132
>circular logic is bad except when i use it!

>>3141171
I'm not trying to prove the universe is uncaused, though, just saying that it can't be determined from that assumption alone.

>>3141204
>proof

>>3141226
When you're making your greentext posts are you trying to communicate anything or do you just greentext words at random?

>>3141110

Not an argument again friendo

>>3140865
I add to the Kalam argument that whatever created this universe is not subject to its laws. Meaning the creator could presumably create nothing from something. The act of creation is the creator's cause.

I say creator in the strictest sense. If we assume the universe is temporal, as the argument does, then there is some creator.

>>3141302
>arguments are good cuz i sed so
Not an argument

>>3141317
Aren't you refuting your own post?

>>3141331
I never said they were good, you did ;^)

>>3141337
That was my first post in the thread and it was a question. I wondered why someone was posting "not an argument" and attacking the concept of arguments in the same post.

>>3140178
>a) Contra Hume, every event has a cause.

Wasnt Humes argument regarding causation epistimology rather than metaphysics?

>>3139486
>Logically you cannot have an infinite regression behind you, or you would never be "here" "now".
Sure you can. There's an infinite number of numbers before 1, but 1 still exists.