Jump to content
Science Forums

The kca, a logical argument for the existence of god.


RevOfAllRevs

Recommended Posts

THE KCA, A LOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

 

The KCA is a form of ontological argument called a cosmological argument for the existence of God. The contemporary Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) for God’s existence involves literally hundreds of supporting arguments, counter arguments, and multi-arguments from a wide range of disciplines which includes but not limited to the philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, philosophy of religion, philosophy of time, philosophical theology, metaphysics, physical cosmology and cosmogony, and more.

 

It goes like this in its most simple form. The premises are ;

 

1...Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.

 

2...The universe began to exist.

 

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

 

(This cause is God) according to the modern version of the KCA as per Dr WilliamCraig.

 

The universe began to exist therefore the universe has a cause for its existence (God)* . God has no cause for his existence because he is eternal and therefore requires no cause to begin to exist. This simple argument has never been defeated in professional debate only challenged.

 

I would urge anyone that wants to challenge me on this read a bit about the KCA first. While deceptively simple it’s a very good theistic argument and one that I use to support my religious paradigm.

 

Peace ~

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, obviously Rev, your argument is indefeatable if your premises are correct. Therefore, it would behoove you to search logically whether you can trust your premises.

 

Good point and that is a weak point in the argument, but I can defend them (the premises) fairly well, that's where things get complicated with cause and effect and if cause and effect is dependent on time (which was created in the Big Bang according to mainstream science).....that's only the tip of the iceberg.

 

Thanks for the advice...

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic does not trump empiricism. Without incontestable evidence supporting your premise, your entire argument rests on a castle made of sand.

 

Please be specific and precise. What evidence do you want? ANd what premise or idea are your challenging? Keep in mind a philosophical argument does not have the same criteria that a scientific argument does, not in academic not in professional debate etc. The KCA has a lot of evidences that range from circumstantial to observational and empirical. If you re read my thread you will see a partial list of the disciplines that it has used in the past.

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point and that is a weak point in the argument, but I can defend them (the premises) fairly well, that's where things get complicated with cause and effect and if cause and effect is dependent on time (which was created in the Big Bang according to mainstream science).....that's only the tip of the iceberg.

 

Thanks for the advice...

 

; {>

 

Premise 1.

Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.

 

I can go along with this one due to the word "begins." However, if the implication is that whatever exists has a cause and effect, then we need to search more, because I can not take that as true at face value.

 

Premise 2.

The universe began to exist.

 

We do not know about this. There are those who believe that universe has no beginning nor end, or that it was always there. (this is regardless of size and quality, for if you intend to say something about size and quality of universe then it must be specified in the premise.)

 

Premise 3.

Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. This cause is God.

Here, it is implied that God has no cause, but has effect. And that effect must be the cause of Universe. But there is no attempt to explain why that effect must be the cause of the universe.

 

In the end, the most important question is unanswered: How does God permeate and control everything; which is crucial to faith. Or, how does God await in afterlife, even if God is the cause of the universe.

 

There are a lot of holes and disconnects. But, IMO, the inquiry must start with "What you know" and "What you do not know."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your premises are unsupported by evidence, and are hence themselves lacking in merit and not useful in the least. Specific enough?

 

 

 

(not to mention the non-sequitur leap you make from "the universe has a cause" to "that means there's a god!")

 

Lets start with the first premise. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. I cant think of one thing that does not have a cause for its existence! EVERYTHING has a cause for its existence. Even a virtual particle has a twin. Can you name anything that does not have a cause for its existence?

 

You are incorrect as well that I made a Non sequitur! Its very logical. Can you tell me what can cause a universe to begin to exist, a universe that supports life against all odds and is eternal? God is a logical assumption. Unless you can come up with something better.

 

; }>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Premise 1.

 

I can go along with this one due to the word "begins." However, if the implication is that whatever exists has a cause and effect, then we need to search more, because I can not take that as true at face value.

 

Cause and effect is normally considered as part of the premise, however that word “begins” is very important as we shall see later. Many people confuse cause and effect with time, more accurately that time is required for cause and effect while common sense intuition would tell us this is true I think it isn’t necessary. More on that later as well!

 

Premise 2. We do not know about this. There are those who believe that universe has no beginning nor end, or that it was always there. (this is regardless of size and quality, for if you intend to say something about size and quality of universe then it must be specified in the premise.)

 

I can only claim that I am amateur astronomer and love astronomy as my qualifications to comment on this. Nevertheless the standard big bang theory model is the only near universally accepted theory of origins. The reason for this is that the BB is the only theory with empirical as well as mathematical evidence to support it. This theory claims that the universe began about 14.7B years ago and it’s the only universe. Its not eternal because we have not found enough mass to close the universe, actually we haven’t found nearly the mass needed to close the universe. If we could find more than 89% mass and close the universe it may stop expanding and slam into a big crunch, then 'rebound' again in an eternal cycle of crunch and bang.

 

But for now we think the universe will expand forever because according to observational evidence. What this means is that this universe we live in is the only universe that has ever existed. This is not to say there aren’t other theories, however the other theories such as the many universe theory (or the many world theory MWT or MWI) have more than a little credibility, but no empirical evidence to support them. So according to mainstream scientific theory the did universe began to exist as according to premise number two.

 

Premise 3.

Here, it is implied that God has no cause, but has effect. And that effect must be the cause of Universe. But there is no attempt to explain why that effect must be the cause of the universe.

 

The simple explanation for this is that God did not begin to exist as the premise states everything that BEGINS (caps as always for emphasis only) to exist has a cause. See I told you that word begins is important! God existed before the big bang and because time was created in the big bang God is eternal (because he existed before or more accurately outside of time).

 

In the end, the most important question is unanswered: How does God permeate and control everything; which is crucial to faith. Or, how does God await in afterlife, even if God is the cause of the universe.

There are a lot of holes and disconnects. But, IMO, the inquiry must start with "What you know" and "What you do not know."

 

I hope I have plugged some of the holes. I don’t really understand your last question/statement. Expand if you wish. It seems to me that if we have faith who needs the KCA? Hee hee …really, but you see I had little faith when I began and came to religion via science, so I needed things such as the KCA as training wheels to get my faith and balance…

 

Thanks for your well thought out response lawcat...

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only claim that I am amateur astronomer and love astronomy as my qualifications to comment on this. Nevertheless the standard big bang theory model is the only near universally accepted theory of origins. The reason for this is that the BB is the only theory with empirical as well as mathematical evidence to support it.

Here's another false premise. BB is not very widely accepted at all. Many new models have been presented since then, and it is NOT the ONLY theory with empirical and mathematical evidence to support it.

 

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/avoiding_the_big_bang/index.html

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/big_bangs/index.html

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/mathematical_universe/index.html

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/cosmology/index.html

 

 

Care to try again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another false premise. BB is not very widely accepted at all. Many new models have been presented since then, and it is NOT the ONLY theory with empirical and mathematical evidence to support it.

 

Cosmology

A tale of two big bangs

The mathematical universe

 

 

Care to try again?

 

For starters I did not claim that there were not other theories, try reading my replies please. Secondly, I did not see how the theories you posted contradict my claim. I am always astounded by the misinformation that surrounds basic cosmological theory.

 

Here is a excerpt ;

 

"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2]

 

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Try calling one of your astronomy professors they will agree with me. Again the Big Bang is the only theory that has EMPIRICAL evidence to support it.

 

; {>

 

BTW at least one of your sites (the second one) supports my claim not yours because it says that there was a singularity and t-0 (time zero).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Rev,

 

We do not know Big Bang. It is a theology of science. The God is the Big Bang. Because there is cosmic background radiation and red shift, we say there is a point of beginning. But we do not know this. That is why there are multiverse theories, and strings, and multi big bangs. And mathematicians come up with zeros and infinities as final conclusions. Any attempt by science to ram it down our head that there is Big bang is pure dogma.

 

Similarly, for God, nothing more is required than to say: (1) There is such thing called God, and (2) by definition God is omnipowerful and omnipresent. Those premises are as good as any other premise relating to God. Nothing more is required, than faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Double standards, much? You argue against my point by saying they lack evidence, when your own proposition has zero.

 

 

Further, you are again mistaken. The ideas presented in the links I shared ARE supported by evidence and empiricism. Read more closely... actually, just read them at all, will you? You responded within 2 minutes of my post... hardly enough time to review what was presented and offer a valid rebuttal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Rev,

 

We do not know Big Bang. It is a theology of science. The God is the Big Bang. Because there is cosmic background radiation and red shift, we say there is a point of beginning. But we do not know this. That is why there are multiverse theories, and strings, and multi big bangs. Any attempt by science to ram it down our head that there is Big bang is pure dogma.

 

Similarly, for God, nothing more is required than to say: (1) There is such thing called God, and (2) by definition God is omnipowerful and omnipresent. Those premises are as good as any other premise relating to God. Nothing more is required, than faith.

 

Well, with all due respect my friend I happen to think there was a big bang and think its compatible with the bible. The other theories have no empirical evidence to support them. Trust me the big bang is the theists ally!

 

I see the universe as truth. By the design of the universe God is revealed. I am envious of those that have faith and need nothing more. God gave people like myself proof to go with my weak faith (less than a mustard seed!).

 

Thanks for your reply,

 

: {>

 

A great book ; The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and ...

Amazon.com: The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (9780767903035): Gerald L. Schroeder: Books.

http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence.../076790303X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Double standards, much? You argue against my point by saying they lack evidence, when your own proposition has zero.

 

 

Further, you are again mistaken. The ideas presented in the links I shared ARE supported by evidence and empiricism. Read more closely... actually, just read them at all, will you? You responded within 2 minutes of my post... hardly enough time to review what was presented and offer a valid rebuttal.

 

The big bang according to my link has overwhelming empirical evidence. I dont know what your are talking about when you say I have zero evidence. I did read your links and they support my claims. I already told you why, because they support the idea of a singularity. The big bang is based on a singularity it cause the bang to bang.

 

If you want to reject the big bang theory you will go against the majority of scientists. That is your right but its a wrong right.

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another link and excerpt ;

 

The universe began to exist: Empirical evidence

 

The cosmological argument for God's existence asserts that the universe had a beginning. This claim is backed with considerable experimental evidence. The big bang theory of the universe, which is the standard cosmology in use today, recognizes that the observable universe itself- including space and time itself- is not eternal but had a beginning some 13.7 billion years ago.

 

The universe began to exist: Empirical evidence - Apologetics wiki

 

; {>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem Rev, as with everything, is: (1) you speak of something you do not know, and (2) you assign great weight to your favorites arbitrarily, whether you know them or not. Hence, you arrive at conclusion that must encounter scrutiny and resistance. Moreover, for those same reasons, the persuasive power of your argument is attenuated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...