Topic: Kalam argument: My version (Read 4851 times)

cutupmaster · « **on:** January 27, 2008, 10:05:57 PM »

Cimics, I'll get to your responses, but I thought I should post the following for now.

Kalam states:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. [Causal premise]
2. The universe began to exist. [empirical and a priori premise]
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence.

My version states:

1*. Everything that begins to exist has multiple causes and conditions of its existence. [Causal premise]
2*. Causality is inherently reciprocal: it is always the case that the most immediate cause of any effect is affected by it in some causal way. [Causal premise]
3*. The universe began to exist. [empirical and a priori premise]
4*. Therefore, the universe had multiple causes and conditions of its existence. (from 1*, 3*)
5*. Therefore, the most immediate causes of the universe's beginning were affected in some causal way by the universe beginning to exist. (from 2*, 3*, 4*)
6*. Therefore, there are no immutable beings--e.g. agents or entities that are causally unaffected by the effects they produce. (from 2*)
7*. Therefore, traditional monotheism is false. (from 4*, 6*).

Since my causal premises are superior to the Kalam's causal premise, my version of the Kalam argument ought to be accepted by those who find the original convincing. Hence, those theists ought to give up traditional monotheism.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2008, 11:01:36 PM »

Cimics, in the other thread, you said:

"Cutup, how can you possibly prove number 1*? It is not enough to say that it is usually the case. You are going to tell me that you can prove definitively that NOTHING has ever had only 1 cause?"

This move is not open to Kalam proponents. If it's unacceptable to revise (1) to read: everything that begins to exist may or may not have a cause, then it should be unacceptable to revise (1*) to read: everything that begins to exist may or may not have multiple causes. 1* and (1) are at least equally confirmed by observation (though I maintain that 1* is superior).

"Are the words on the page of a book (one made out of ordinary paper) affected by your seeing them. Those words cause you to have certain information in your mind, but they are not affected. Let's say you walked by the Declaration of Independence in Washington DC. Does your reading those words, which may affect you, have any affect on those words on that piece of paper?"

Since my eyes interact with the photons of light reflected by the words I read, causal reciprocation holds.

"BTW, I typed these words on the page. Are there multiple causes of that? (Hint: I know you're going to say yes. I am pretty sure I know what your explanation is going to be, but let's get it out into the open.)"

Yes, there are. The decision to type those words initiated a chain of neuromuscular synaptic events which led to your fingers depressing the keys on your keyboard.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2008, 11:19:21 PM »

Quote

Hence, those theists ought to give up traditional monotheism.

Right. :rollseyes:

I don't care how smart you think you are, but you're dead wrong about immutability. I'm trying to do you a favor. One of these days you're going to embarrass yourself in front of someone you actually care to impress. You're totally off your rocker in incorporating immutability into this argument. My suggestion: read some theology from theologians so you know what they're talking about. I'm not talking about the Cliff notes versions, either.

I therefore repeat what I said in the other threads that it is actually the point to be shown that causation is linked to change intrinsically when you make immutability your target. But all of your arguments are completely silent in making that argument. This is not, I believe, a question of charitably reading your argument. I think you have no comprehension of the fact that this requires demonstration. You just take it for granted that 1-5 constitutes a prima facie illustration that a cause, even if reciprocated upon, is intrinsically changed.

Let me be clear: I am not denying your right to try to rope immutability into your arguments. Between 5* and 6* a very simple premise will tidy things up: 5.1* Causing something also changes it, by virtue of the effects affecting the cause.

That will at least give a bridge to 6*, even if I still think the whole thing doesn't follow.

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU LACK:

You have reduced the Kalam to these three propositions, apparently unawares that the Kalam does not stop there. There is also significant discussion about whether or not an infinite regress is possible or not. You ignore that in your representation of Kalam, and you ignore it in your own arguments, which operate on the latent assumption that causation can regress infinitely.

All of these issues reduce to a question of regress. Either you think an infinite regress is possible or you don't. That's the idea. Interestingly, your argument(s) show a complete lack of awareness of this central issue.

I have already said that I am not an expert on the Kalam or Craig's writings on it. So as just a very quick corroboration, let me offer this so you know I"m not making this up:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

Quote

The kalam argument has its roots in medieval Arabic philosophy and theology. The Arabic word kalam means "speech," but more broadly it means "natural theology" or "philosophical theism" (Craig, Kalam, 4). The distinctive feature of kalam-style cosmology is its stress on the impossibility of the actual infinite. Put simply, kalam arguments try to demonstrate (1) that the existence of an actual infinite (a concept from modern set theory to be discussed shortly) is impossible and (2) that even if it were possible, the universe itself is not actually infinite and hence must have had a beginning.

And for reference sake, the issue of the regress is the root of Aristotle's conclusions, too.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2008, 11:21:50 PM »

As a question of form, I don't think you should be posting your answer to Cimics in this thread. You started like 5 threads and now you gotta carry them. Starting a 6th one to cover the objections raised in the other 5 makes for an unorganized forum. When this was a defense of 'your version' I was ok with the 6th thread. If this is where you're going to start taking on the other threads, too, I protest.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2008, 11:26:04 PM »

1. Can God be causally affected? Yes or no?

2. My version of the Kalam argument DOES assume that an infinite regression of past events is impossible. The one who ought to be embarrassed here is you.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2008, 11:29:32 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on January 27, 2008, 11:21:50 PM

As a question of form, I don't think you should be posting your answer to Cimics in this thread. You started like 5 threads and now you gotta carry them. Starting a 6th one to cover the objections raised in the other 5 makes for an unorganized forum. When this was a defense of 'your version' I was ok with the 6th thread. If this is where you're going to start taking on the other threads, too, I protest.

The topics in the other threads are essentially no different from this new one--in fact, this thread combines those previous topics--so what's the problem of having those discussions here?

cutupmaster · « **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2008, 01:38:55 AM »

Remember: Kalam proponents insist that the universe must had a cause, even though the 'no-cause' explanation is simpler than the 'a-cause' explanation. They insist on a caused universe because the causal premise (they say) is undeniable. But my causal premises should also be undeniable since they are as equally grounded--if not better--empirically as the Kalam's first premise.

So, if proponents of the KCA want to say that (1) is rationally undeniable because it is always confirmed via experience and observation, then they ought to think that both (1*) and (2*) are rationally undeniable for exactly the same reason. Hence, by their own lights, theists who think that the KCA is a compelling argument for theism ought to abandon traditional monotheism.

cimics · « **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2008, 08:22:17 AM »

Quote

"Cutup, how can you possibly prove number 1*? It is not enough to say that it is usually the case. You are going to tell me that you can prove definitively that NOTHING has ever had only 1 cause?"

This move is not open to Kalam proponents. If it's unacceptable to revise (1) to read: everything that begins to exist may or may not have a cause, then it should be unacceptable to revise (1*) to read: everything that begins to exist may or may not have multiple causes. 1* and (1) are at least equally confirmed by observation (though I maintain that 1* is superior).

The Kalam position, as I understand it, would be: everything that begins to exist has at least one cause. This is a less ambitious premise than your multiple cause premise. You are in the position of having to show that no effect ever proceeds from a single cause -- something you have yet to make a persuasive case for.

Quote

"Are the words on the page of a book (one made out of ordinary paper) affected by your seeing them. Those words cause you to have certain information in your mind, but they are not affected. Let's say you walked by the Declaration of Independence in Washington DC. Does your reading those words, which may affect you, have any affect on those words on that piece of paper?"

Since my eyes interact with the photons of light reflected by the words I read, causal reciprocation holds.

I think it's questionable whether your eyes even have any effect on the photons. But even if they do, you haven't shown that your eyes have any effect on the words.

Quote

"BTW, I typed these words on the page. Are there multiple causes of that? (Hint: I know you're going to say yes. I am pretty sure I know what your explanation is going to be, but let's get it out into the open.)"

Yes, there are. The decision to type those words initiated a chain of neuromuscular synaptic events which led to your fingers depressing the keys on your keyboard.

A chain of events is not the type of "multiple causes" that your 1* requires. Your argument means nothing if all you are saying is A causes B, C, and D, and then B, C, and D, combine to cause E. Nor does it avail you to say A causes B, then A and B combine to cause C. So your chain:

decision --> NSE1, NSE2, NSE3 --> NSE4, NSE5, NSE6 --> fingers depressing keys --> words on screen

is not an example of 1*. And I'm being charitable with your argument. I could have interpreted what you said to be this:

decision --> NSE1 -->> NSE2 --> NSE3 --> fingers depressing keys --> words on screen

which would be even worse.

Even under the first formulation, the "decision" is one cause. And once we get past the NSEs, the fingers depressing the keys is one cause (for each letter produced by the depression of one key). I'll even assume that there are multiple concurrent intermediate causes between depressing the key and the letter on the screen. You still have several instances of a single cause as the sufficient condition for producing an effect.

But let me drop this bomb on your argument. The orthodox Christian position recognizes God as trinity. Do you see the implications?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** January 28, 2008, 08:29:21 AM »

"The topics in the other threads are essentially no different from this new one--in fact, this thread combines those previous topics--so what's the problem of having those discussions here?"

The problem is that now we have those five threads with Cimic's responses and the person who comes to read the thread will not easily know that Cimics has been replied to in yet another thread.

"Hence, by their own lights, theists who think that the KCA is a compelling argument for theism ought to abandon traditional monotheism."

Except your representation of the KCA utterly is silent on the regress issue! The most you've cited of the KCA to this point in any thread is just these first three premises. I note that the third premise does not read "therefore, there is a God." And yet your argument's last premise reads essentially 'there is no God.' How does the KCA get from 'the universe had a cause' to 'the universe was caused by God'?

You are excluding from your representation of the KCA the part that is the most relevant!

cutupmaster · « **Reply #9 on:** January 28, 2008, 11:59:46 AM »

cutupmaster · « **Reply #10 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:04:17 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on January 28, 2008, 08:29:21 AM

Except your representation of the KCA utterly is silent on the regress issue!

This is patently false. My argument DOES assume that an infinite regression of past events is impossible; the fact that you don't see this illustrates your ignorance of the Kalam argument.

3*. The universe began to exist. [empirical and a priori premise]

The claim that the "universe began to exist" is supported by both empirical evidence from physics and astronomy AND philosophical arguments against an infinite regression of past events. By conceding that 3* is true, I have GRANTED - in the argument! - that those arguments are successful.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:37:51 PM »

"My argument DOES assume that an infinite regression of past events is impossible; the fact that you don't see this illustrates your ignorance of the Kalam argument."

Right. That's it.

Quote

3*. The universe began to exist. [empirical and a priori premise]

The claim that the "universe began to exist" is supported by both empirical evidence from physics and astronomy AND philosophical arguments against an infinite regression of past events. By conceding that 3* is true, I have GRANTED - in the argument! - that those arguments are successful.

Let's everyone get out their magnifying glasses here and see if we can find the words 'infinite' or 'regress' in 3*.

Anyone see it? Nope.

Does 3* preclude the possibility of an infinite regress? Nope.

That the universe began to exist is not where proponents of the KCA make their case for an immovable mover. We'd probably all see that if you bothered to post more than just the first three propositions in the argument. That 3* doesn't preclude an infinite regress is very simply to see: we can ask whether or not the cause of the universe in 3* itself had a cause. Or, in your logic, 'multiple causes.'

Consider this identically structured proposition:

3** This post began to exist.

Therefore, it had at least one cause (or in your doublespeak, multiple causes). The cause of the post is, of course, me posting it. Yet we all know that I myself am caused. Therefore, even if brazenly thought 3** precluded an infinite regress of causation, we would know a posteriori that it more than one steps in the chain existed. How many steps? 3** doesn't say, just as 3* doesn't, just as your presentation of the KCA (1-3) doesn't.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #12 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:45:18 PM »

Sntjohnny, you're just COMPLETELY embarrassing yourself. The claim that "the universe began to exist" is supported by arguments against the impossibility of an infinite regress.

Craig says:
"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.
"

"Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Second Premiss
Clearly, the crucial premiss in this argument is (2), and two independent arguments are offered in support of it. Let us therefore turn first to an examination of the supporting arguments. "

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5174

cutupmaster · « **Reply #13 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:48:05 PM »

"That the universe began to exist is not where proponents of the KCA make their case for an immovable mover."

YES, IT IS!!!

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:59:23 PM »

"Sntjohnny, you're just COMPLETELY embarrassing yourself. The claim that "the universe began to exist" is supported by arguments against the impossibility of an infinite regress."

You're utterly ridiculous. I'm so happy that you've finally exerted a little elbow grease. I've been telling you all along that Craig ropes in questions about regresses. You've utterly ignored that. Now you think you're going to get away with presenting it as though you were aware of it all along? Patent nonsense. I also said all along that I wasn't a KCA/Craig expert. As such, I have nothing to be embarrassed about. In fact, I'm doing quite well for not having looked at it in five years, and you're proceeding pathetically for allegedly being immersed in it at present.

Let's look at what you posted.

Quote

The claim that "the universe began to exist" is supported by arguments against the impossibility of an infinite regress."

IS SUPPORTED BY OTHER ARGUMENTS is NOT THE SAME AS CONTAINED in "The universe began to exist."

You have just provided a cut and paste from Craig providing 4 separate propositions. If "The universe began to exist" encompassed a regress, he wouldn't have needed to list the additional propositions.

Which leads us again to my complaint that in your presentation of the KCA to this point stopped at 'The universe had a cause' while your KCA concludes with 'there is no God as xtians understand him.'

You have yet to provide any comparative reasoning in KCA 1-3 where the conclusion of theism is inferred.

Most importantly, regardless of whether or not Craig thinks that 'the universe began to exist' intrinsically precludes an infinite regress, my counter-example of 'this post began to exist' reveals just how stupid it would be for him to argue that. For we know all sorts of things that begin to exist and we know the things that caused them to exist and we know that those things were themselves caused by something else. Craig is not so stupid as to believe that 'the universe began to exist' intrinsically argues for a first principle. That is why he needs additional propositions which I have been telling you all along exist but you've been ignoring.

But I've got to give you credit. After 5 separate threads you've finally managed to offer something that covers the important aspects of the KCA. No one is going to believe that you were aware of this information before. I've been pushing and pushing you on this and if you knew one lick about what it was you were discoursing on, you would have provided this material in any number of places over the last week. TODAY is the first time you manage to post it.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #15 on:** January 28, 2008, 01:15:13 PM »

"You're utterly ridiculous. I'm so happy that you've finally exerted a little elbow grease. I've been telling you all along that Craig ropes in questions about regresses. You've utterly ignored that. Now you think you're going to get away with presenting it as though you were aware of it all along? Patent nonsense."

Once again, what part of, "The universe began to exist. [empirical and a priori premise]" did you not understand? The claim that the universe began to exist is the conclusion of arguments against an infinite regress, and in my version of the Kalam argument, I GRANTED THAT ASSUMPTION. There was no need for me to actually ARGUE for a claim that I already granted to be true! (What kind of an apologist are you??!)

"I also said all along that I wasn't a KCA/Craig expert. "

No kidding! The following statements proves that assertion completely:

1. Except your representation of the KCA utterly is silent on the regress issue!

2. You are excluding from your representation of the KCA the part that is the most relevant!

3. Does 3* preclude the possibility of an infinite regress? Nope.

4. "That the universe began to exist is not where proponents of the KCA make their case for an immovable mover."

"As such, I have nothing to be embarrassed about."

You should be embarrassed about being so arrogant.

"IS SUPPORTED BY OTHER ARGUMENTS is NOT THE SAME AS CONTAINED in "The universe began to exist.""

Once again, the claim that "the universe began to exist" is the CONCLUSION of arguments attempting to demonstrate the impossibility of an infinite regress of events. In my argument, I ASSUMED that those arguments were correct by virtue of granting THAT premise.

"You have just provided a cut and paste from Craig providing 4 separate propositions. If "The universe began to exist" encompassed a regress, he wouldn't have needed to list the additional propositions.
"

And there was ABSOLUTELY no need for me to go through those arguments since I GRANTED - in my argument! - that they are correct!

Once again, my third premise says: The universe began to exist. [empirical and a priori premise]

Anyone who's familiar with the KCA would KNOW precisely what I meant in the "[...]."

"You have yet to provide any comparative reasoning in KCA 1-3 where the conclusion of theism is inferred."

That doesn't matter in the slightest for my purposes. My counter-Kalam argument shows that we would necessarily have to infer the falsity of traditional monotheism.

"Most importantly, regardless of whether or not Craig thinks that 'the universe began to exist' intrinsically precludes an infinite regress, my counter-example of 'this post began to exist' reveals just how stupid it would be for him to argue that. For we know all sorts of things that begin to exist and we know the things that caused them to exist and we know that those things were themselves caused by something else. Craig is not so stupid as to believe that 'the universe began to exist' intrinsically argues for a first principle."

I repeat: The claim that "the universe began to exist" is the CONCLUSION of arguments attempting to demonstrate the impossibility of an infinite regress of events. In my argument, I ASSUMED that those arguments were correct by virtue of granting THAT premise.

"That is why he needs additional propositions which I have been telling you all along exist but you've been ignoring."

Here's what you're ignoring: There was ABSOLUTELY no need for me to go through those arguments since I GRANTED - in my argument! - that they are correct!

" No one is going to believe that you were aware of this information before."

*GROAN* uh huh...

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #16 on:** January 28, 2008, 01:24:42 PM »

http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php?topic=2544.msg42691#msg42691

On January 21, 2008, 10:19:31 PM I used the phrase 'actual infinite'.

A search on this forum reveals that the first time you used the phrase 'actual infinite' was just now.

What about regress? The search reveals that I was also the first to refer to it at all- in the post I just mentioned above.

http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php?topic=2548.msg42746#msg42746

In that post there (Jan 23) I said:

Quote

Furthermore, we still have the problem of the infinite regress which your argument contains as a hidden assumption. Theists who make arguments about unmovable movers and immutable mutaters add the proposition that the chains can't go on forever. That's an explicit component of their arguments that an entity has those characteristics. As such, your argument is a denial of their argument on that point. The difference is that they make it explicit and it is only implicit in your argument.

AN EXPLICIT COMPONENT.

How did you reply?

Same thread:

"And you seem to think the "infinite regress issue" is a problem for me. If it is, can you please formulate it as an objection against a particular premise or inference in my argument?"

What? What's that? Is that you not saying "Oh, but Craig contains a final regress in 'the universe began to exist!" ?

No. What a fine time for you to mention it, too, don't you think?

You went on:

"I have no idea how this counts as an objection to my argument. If one of my premises false? Is one of my inferences invalid?"

What a silly thing to say for someone who is aware of Craig's additional propositions. This is pretty clearly revealing that you were utterly clueless about the fact that Craig's argument referenced the issue of regress at all.

You yourself, as a search reveals, indicate that you never initiated any remarks about regresses or infinites. They always came in response to me. But this one is beautiful:

http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php?topic=2545.msg42624#msg42624

Quote

Quote from: sntjohnny on January 20, 2008, 09:13:53 PM
"That causality is reciprocal may entail an infinite regress (I don't know) doesn't affect my argument in the slightest. It's simply an empircal fact."

It is an empirical fact that causation regresses infinitely?

No, it's an empircal fact that causality is reciprocal.

Quote from: sntjohnny on January 20, 2008, 09:13:53 PM
You don't know that your assertion that causality is reciprocal in all cases with no exceptions does in fact entail an infinite regress?

No, I don't know.

Here we have you saying that you don't know if it is an empirical fact that reciprocal causality regresses infinitely. I ask you specifically if you think it is an empirical fact that causation regresses infinitely, which you completely pan. NOW, you insist that it is an EMPIRICAL fact that the universe began to exist and that this precludes an infinite regress. So, we've gone from you not knowing if the universe coming into existence by your argument entails a regress to you asserting it as an empirical fact:

Quote

2. The universe began to exist. [empirical and a priori premise]

Which you insist includes the proposition that an infinite regress is impossible. My oh my, how quickly you change your mind!

If I didn't know better, you were fundamentally ignorant all along about the nuts and bolts of the KCA. Now you're trying to make yourself out as someone who knows what they're talking about. Alas, any objective reader will be able to see exactly what has happened. I pushed and pushed and finally you decided to look into it. Deceptively, you produce the EXPLICIT comments about an actual infinite that I explicitly said that Craig makes in the KCA as though it was ME unaware of that material!

As these quotes document, I was aware of it all along. A review of the threads in question will show that I have been pushing you to deal with that material from the beginning.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #17 on:** January 28, 2008, 01:34:02 PM »

You quoted me saying: "And you seem to think the "infinite regress issue" is a problem for me. If it is, can you please formulate it as an objection against a particular premise or inference in my argument?"

I still maintain this. In the other thread, since my argument is compatible with both the assumption that infinite regresses are impossible, and the assumption that they are possible, bringing up the "infinite regress issue" could not possibly affect my argument in anyway.

I said:
"I have no idea how this counts as an objection to my argument. If one of my premises false? Is one of my inferences invalid?"

"What a silly thing to say for someone who is aware of Craig's additional propositions. This is pretty clearly revealing that you were utterly clueless about the fact that Craig's argument referenced the issue of regress at all."

Not silly at all. Since my argument in the other thread is compatible with the assumption that infinite regresses are impossible, how could the argument against infinite regresses possibly be a problem for me?

"Here we have you saying that you don't know if it is an empirical fact that reciprocal causality regresses infinitely. I ask you specifically if you think it is an empirical fact that causation regresses infinitely, which you completely pan. NOW, you insist that it is an EMPIRICAL fact that the universe began to exist and that this precludes an infinite regress. "

And I still maintain my original position: I don't know if infinite regression is impossible. All I've done is GRANTED that it is impossible for the sake of argument.

You quoted me saying:
"2. The universe began to exist. [empirical and a priori premise]"

---------
Which you insist includes the proposition that an infinite regress is impossible. My oh my, how quickly you change your mind!
----------

My oh my, how quick you are to make fallacious inferences! I GRANTED it for the sake of argument!

"If I didn't know better"

YES!!! You DON'T know better...'enuff said.'

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** January 28, 2008, 02:26:29 PM »

"My oh my, how quick you are to make fallacious inferences! I GRANTED it for the sake of argument!"

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure you did. lol. Funny, why didn't you state that then?

"And I still maintain my original position: I don't know if infinite regression is impossible. All I've done is GRANTED that it is impossible for the sake of argument."

Well, if you don't know if it is impossible, how is it that you've allegedly bundled it up into your own KCA as an empirical fact?

I notice that it was again a theist that used the term 'actual infinite' first in conversation with you, Cutup: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=235476&highlight=actual+infinite

In fact, I notice that this post by this other theist was posted prior to your posting of the Craig article here. Here is my hypothesis:

I have been pestering you about the regress issue for a whole week and you personally had not yet encountered it in your readings. Now, you see ddoe use the term 'actual infinite' and it suddenly occurs to you, "Holy Crap. There's that term again. I thought Sntjohnny was just making that up!" and that prompted you to dig deeper. I notice that in answer to ddoe yesterday you say:

"Suppose it's true that an infinite regression of past causes is impossible. It could still be the case that the universe was caused into exist by multiple causes, which were themselves uncaused."

Interesting! I would expect that someone who believed that the KCA always addressed the infinite regression issue in "the universe began to exist" would have said rather,

"Well, the KCA assumes that an infinite regression of past causes is impossible, so we need not concern ourselves with that. However, it could still be the case that...."

So, my guess is that as of just a couple of hours ago you still didn't know about Craig's full argument.

I notice too that in all of your posts on the KCA at infidels, you never once reference the regress issue. Indeed, a search on Infidels for posts by you on the term 'regress' reveals not a single hit.

If you grasped the regress issue, you'd see that it applies equally to the question of immutability and multiple causes, etc. The root of all theistic cosmological arguments is the proposition that an infinite regress is impossible. An infinite regress is impossible in causation... and mutability... and anything else you care to apply it to.

Ok, Cimics, he's all yours!

cutupmaster · « **Reply #19 on:** January 28, 2008, 02:43:57 PM »

"Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure you did. lol. Funny, why didn't you state that then?"

Because that has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on the effectiveness of my argument.

"Well, if you don't know if it is impossible, how is it that you've allegedly bundled it up into your own KCA as an empirical fact? "

What part of "I GRANTED it for the sake of argument!" don't you understand?

"I have been pestering you about the regress issue for a whole week and you personally had not yet encountered it in your readings. "

Well, your "hypothesis" is simply false. I've been studying the Kalam argument for several months now (on and off), and even before then, I knew that the second premise was supported by arguments against infinite regresses.

"Now, you see ddoe use the term 'actual infinite' and it suddenly occurs to you, "Holy Crap. There's that term again. I thought Sntjohnny was just making that up!" and that prompted you to dig deeper. "

huh? As I said before, the 'infinite regress issue' does not defeat my argument in anyway, so there was no point in bringing it up before.

I said:
"Suppose it's true that an infinite regression of past causes is impossible. It could still be the case that the universe was caused into exist by multiple causes, which were themselves uncaused."

----------------
Interesting! I would expect that someone who believed that the KCA always addressed the infinite regression issue in "the universe began to exist" would have said rather,

"Well, the KCA assumes that an infinite regression of past causes is impossible, so we need not concern ourselves with that. However, it could still be the case that...."
--------------------

What are you blabbering about?? I explained to ddoe - who, btw, agrees with me - that my argument is not affected in the slightest by the infinite regress issue.

"So, my guess is "

Note here that "guess" is the operative word. GUESSED WRONG!

"that as of just a couple of hours ago you still didn't know about Craig's full argument."

LOL

"I notice too that in all of your posts on the KCA at infidels, you never once reference the regress issue. "

BECAUSE THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO POINT IN MENTIONING IT - MY ARGUMENT WASN'T AFFECTED IN THE SLIGHTEST WAY.

"If you grasped the regress issue, you'd see that it applies equally to the question of immutability and multiple causes, etc. "

No, it doesn't apply at all. As I've explained to ddoe (who agrees with me!), it could still be the case that both: (i) the universe was caused to exist by multiple-causes, and (ii) an infinite regression of causes is impossible. I'm not the one who's not grasping the issue.

"Ok, Cimics, he's all yours!"

Return when your battle wounds heal!

Author Topic: Kalam argument: My version (Read 4851 times)