Wiliam Lane Craig Infinite proof for god

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:38 pm

OrdinaryClay wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

You're using observational data to make an assumption about the universe (as we've defined it). You're assuming that because MOST of the light-emitting matter we've observed is red-shifted, then all matter, including that which we haven't observed, must also be red-shifted. This of course infers that all matter in existence must originate from the original source of the expansion. The KCA argument's universe (as we've defined) can not be totally based upon observational data... and I'm not sure this is a road you wish to go down. If we wish to go down this road, then you must allow assumptions on my part as well.

For instance, based upon the theory that the observable universe began to expand, there could be many (if space is flat as observation data suggest, then there could be infinite expansions) such expansions beyond our observable horizon. Which of course would infer there's a great deal of matter moving toward us, as well as away from us.

Actually, all the KCA requires is a beginning to the universe.

Again, if you're going to make the claim 'it began to exist' it needs to reference the observable universe and not some grander omniverse. We can let this point of contention slide and continue.

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:42 pm

OrdinaryClay wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

Bumping this thread again...

It should be noted that we've now expended a great amount of effort just covering what I consider(ed) the ambiguous nature of the word "universe" in the KCA and still haven't reached an exact agreement on how our expanded definition relates to the second half of a very short premise.

The KCA wrote:

The universe began to exist.

Next I need to know what it means by "began to exist". The ball is in your court OC

The property begins to exist is held by an entity if there exists two logically sequential points in which an entity did not exist in the logically prior point and then exists in the logically posterior point..

Ok... so does this apply to the geode sitting on my desk and/or the bush that's growing outside my window... or you or I for that matter?

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

MockingGods wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

The property begins to exist is held by an entity if there exists two logically sequential points in which an entity did not exist in the logically prior point and then exists in the logically posterior point..

Ok... so does this apply to the geode sitting on my desk and/or the bush that's growing outside my window... or you or I for that matter?

My definition does not restrict the entity so the answer is clearly yes.

Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:39 pm

OrdinaryClay wrote:

iPondR wrote:

Quote:

I think this is one of the most famous and believed (by atheists) speculations on the net. It is in fact nothing but speculation (which does not qualify as a prediction) with no empirical science behind it.

So, you've seen it already? Wink

I'd speculate it's one of the most widely dismissed by theists, yet one of the least watched.'Reasons to believe' dissed it without even knowing what's in it. Whatever.

Yes, I've seen it. So which of his claims do you purport to be scientific?

You've seen it? I'll then give you due respect. You've done better than 'Reasons To Believe' I too peruse opposing viewpoints and similarly remain unconvinced, so let's leave it at that for now.

I just don't get your question but I think that's your point and it's mine too! We have different understandings of 'scientific' - or should I say 'sufficient' Wink

Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:17 am

OrdinaryClay wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

The property begins to exist is held by an entity if there exists two logically sequential points in which an entity did not exist in the logically prior point and then exists in the logically posterior point..

Ok... so does this apply to the geode sitting on my desk and/or the bush that's growing outside my window... or you or I for that matter?

My definition does not restrict the entity so the answer is clearly yes.

Excellent, we'll now address my concerns with the first premise. I must credit BornAgainAtheist for bringing this to my attention.

The KCA first premise wrote:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

This does not follow with our observational reality. Things that begin to exist rarely if ever are the result of a single cause. In fact, nearly everything that begins to exist is the result of innumerable causes and I would challenge you to name one observed phenomenon that doesn't follow this paradigm (I can think of possibly one or maybe two). In order for this premise to have credence it would need to be written something like this...

Almost everything that begins to exist is the result of multiple causes.

Your thoughts?

Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:18 pm

OrdinaryClay wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

Bumping this thread again...

It should be noted that we've now expended a great amount of effort just covering what I consider(ed) the ambiguous nature of the word "universe" in the KCA and still haven't reached an exact agreement on how our expanded definition relates to the second half of a very short premise.

The KCA wrote:

The universe began to exist.

Next I need to know what it means by "began to exist". The ball is in your court OC

The property begins to exist is held by an entity if there exists two logically sequential points in which an entity did not exist in the logically prior point and then exists in the logically posterior point..

OK it comes to mind that, at the level of quantum foaminess, from whence, apparently, the present universe expanded and then condensed or 'banged'... cause and effect lose their meaning. Anyone care to comment?

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:13 am

iPondR wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

Bumping this thread again...

It should be noted that we've now expended a great amount of effort just covering what I consider(ed) the ambiguous nature of the word "universe" in the KCA and still haven't reached an exact agreement on how our expanded definition relates to the second half of a very short premise.

The KCA wrote:

The universe began to exist.

Next I need to know what it means by "began to exist". The ball is in your court OC

The property begins to exist is held by an entity if there exists two logically sequential points in which an entity did not exist in the logically prior point and then exists in the logically posterior point..

OK it comes to mind that, at the level of quantum foaminess, from whence, apparently, the present universe expanded and then condensed or 'banged'... cause and effect lose their meaning. Anyone care to comment?

I'm sorta waiting to address the concluding argument...

The KCA wrote:

Therefore, the universe has a cause.

until my other concerns are properly aired. Could the observable universe be acausal (without cause)? Perhaps, but I tend to think unlikely.

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:28 pm

MockingGods wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

The property begins to exist is held by an entity if there exists two logically sequential points in which an entity did not exist in the logically prior point and then exists in the logically posterior point..

Ok... so does this apply to the geode sitting on my desk and/or the bush that's growing outside my window... or you or I for that matter?

My definition does not restrict the entity so the answer is clearly yes.

Excellent, we'll now address my concerns with the first premise. I must credit BornAgainAtheist for bringing this to my attention.

The KCA first premise wrote:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

This does not follow with our observational reality. Things that begin to exist rarely if ever are the result of a single cause. In fact, nearly everything that begins to exist is the result of innumerable causes and I would challenge you to name one observed phenomenon that doesn't follow this paradigm (I can think of possibly one or maybe two). In order for this premise to have credence it would need to be written something like this...

Almost everything that begins to exist is the result of multiple causes.

Your thoughts?

Hi MG!

Since my name cropped up, I'd just like to add my 50 cents at this point.

The KCA consists of three sentences...

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I believe that it is relevant at this point to question the wording of the first premise, 'Whatever begins to exist has a cause'.

Is there some philosophical sleight-of-hand going on in the wording of the above sentence?
Imho the construction of this premise looks to be channeling us to arrive at the desired conclusion - that of a SINGLE cause.
Because Christianity holds to the notion of one, singular Creator God and because cosmology seems to be indicating that our universe appears to have a single point of origin, I cannot but see the words, 'a cause' as a subtle means of guiding us away from the following, necessary questions.

1 . Since the KCA relies upon the discipline of science to make it's logical inferences, what does science have to say about anything beginning to exist with just one cause?. Are there any examples of this 'one cause only' phenomena?

2 . The words, ' whatever begins to exist ' mean ' all those things that have begun to exist and those that still exist ' because the KCA's definition of the universe necessarily encompasses ' all that has begun to exist since the universe's beginning '. In the KCA, there is nothing that does not owe it's origin to this one, single originating event.

Therefore, each and every separate thing (no matter when it began to exist - yesterday or 12 billion years ago) must have had one and only ONE separate cause for it's existence. This is because the first premise clearly states that, 'whatever begins to exist has A cause' - singular, not plural. It is not until premise 2 that we refer to the beginning of the universe, 13.7 billion years ago. So, the words, 'whatever begins to exist has a cause' cannot be referring to beginning of the universe. These words must therefore be referring to all of the other causes of things coming into existence, since the Big Bang event. Since then. Since that event, ok?

So you and I, this planet and all that there is in the universe, each separate thing, MUST have one and only one cause, as stipulated by premise 1. No other examples of causation are permitted by this interpretation. Since all humans are examples of multiple causation (sperm and egg) , either you and I don't exist or this interpretation of the wording of the first premise of the KCA is false. Which is it?

3 . Assuming that the first premise of the KCA does allow for non-singular examples of causation, does it therefore logically follow that the universe can also have a non-singular cause? If not, why not?

Thanks,

BAA.

Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:45 pm

Thanks for adding a much more succinct and expansive explanation of the point I was getting at BAA. Very Happy

Quote:

Is there some philosophical sleight-of-hand going on in the wording of the above sentence?

Yes indeed, I do believe there is some philosophical chicanery going on with the first premise. I'm hoping that OC returns to address these concerns before I continue with my next bit of contention.

Quote:

Therefore, each and every separate thing (no matter when it began to exist - yesterday or 12 billion years ago) must have had one and only ONE separate cause for it's existence.

If this were the case, our reality would be extremely predictable and clearly it is not. Let's take an example of something that is intelligently created, a computer. How many thousand, if not millions of various intelligent creative inputs (causes) went into building just one of these devices? We have millions of incremental causes going back hundreds of years just leading up to the ability to form the plastics, silicones and metals which make up the computer, not to mention the extremely long and complex causal chain which brought about the device itself. Now let's compare that to something that the creationist would have us believe is the result of a single cause, the observable universe. I can't even imagine the staggering amount of individual causal actions that went into bring about its current configuration. It would be mind boggling to even consider such a number, and yet that complexity is the result of a single cause? Doesn't seem likely to me, in fact, a single cause could only be compared to magic.

*POOF* computer
*POOF* universe

Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:41 am

Thanks MG.

MockingGods wrote:

Thanks for adding a much more succinct and expansive explanation of the point I was getting at BAA. Very Happy

Quote:

Is there some philosophical sleight-of-hand going on in the wording of the above sentence?

Yes indeed, I do believe there is some philosophical chicanery going on with the first premise. I'm hoping that OC returns to address these concerns before I continue with my next bit of contention.

As you say, when OC returns...

If he insists that the first premise MUST be worded, ' Whatever begins to exist has a cause ' a pertinent question would be... why?

Wouldn't, ' Whatever begins to exist is caused ' do just as well? If not, why not?

Or, ' Whatever begins to exist does so via one or more causes '?

A bit more investigation into the reasoning of why it has to be ' a ' cause should prove v-e-r-y eeeeenteresting!

Quote:

Therefore, each and every separate thing (no matter when it began to exist - yesterday or 12 billion years ago) must have had one and only ONE separate cause for it's existence.

If this were the case, our reality would be extremely predictable and clearly it is not.

Ummm... actually I think our reality would be as you've written below - *POOF*

Let's take an example of something that is intelligently created, a computer. How many thousand, if not millions of various intelligent creative inputs (causes) went into building just one of these devices? We have millions of incremental causes going back hundreds of years just leading up to the ability to form the plastics, silicones and metals which make up the computer, not to mention the extremely long and complex causal chain which brought about the device itself. Now let's compare that to something that the creationist would have us believe is the result of a single cause, the observable universe. I can't even imagine the staggering amount of individual causal actions that went into bring about its current configuration. It would be mind boggling to even consider such a number, and yet that complexity is the result of a single cause? Doesn't seem likely to me, in fact, a single cause could only be compared to magic.

*POOF* computer
*POOF* universe

Anyway, here's a revised KCA, reworded to take account of some of our quibbles with the original.

1. Whatever begins to exist (define 'begin to exist') appears to be caused (define 'caused')
2. The universe (define 'universe') appears to have come into existence
3. Therefore, the universe might have been caused - or not

How's that? Wink

BAA.

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:50 am

BAA wrote:

1. Whatever begins to exist (define 'begin to exist') appears to be caused (define 'caused')
2. The universe (define 'universe') appears to have come into existence
3. Therefore, the universe might have been caused - or not

How's that?

Yes, we've been working on defining some of what you put in parentheses. We're still not agreed (OC and I) upon how "began to exists" relates to "universe". I actually think the second premise should be written...

The observable universe appears to be expanding, probably from a centralized location.

I seriously doubt the expansion was acasual or the result of a single cause. In any case, you've done a fine job highlighting why I find the KCA an ambiguous argument... thanks Very Happy

Quote:

If he insists that the first premise MUST be worded, ' Whatever begins to exist has a cause ' a pertinent question would be... why?

Why indeed! It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure why it's worded singularly or why they would want to keep it that way... monotheism baby Wink

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:59 pm

Something else of note in this discussion BAA. In your rewrite of the KCA it should be noted the use of probabilistic language. In each premise we find such terms as "appears" and "might". My statement to replace the second premise uses such verbiage twice.

I wrote:

The observable universe appears to be expanding, probably from a centralized location.

Now look at the KCA in its raw form

The KCA wrote:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This reminds me of dogma associated with religious writ. Any language of uncertainty is glaringly absent.

Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:14 pm

MockingGods wrote:

Something else of note in this discussion BAA. In your rewrite of the KCA it should be noted the use of probabilistic language. In each premise we find such terms as "appears" and "might". My statement to replace the second premise uses such verbiage twice.

I wrote:

The observable universe appears to be expanding, probably from a centralized location.

Now look at the KCA in its raw form

The KCA wrote:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This reminds me of dogma associated with religious writ. Any language of uncertainty is glaringly absent.

Hi MG!

Right on the money! Check this out... http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

When making any recognized form of argument it is necessary to abide by the rules of logical argumentation.

This Wiki page begins with Deductive Arguments, the strongest form of argument that there is. A careful reading of what this means will show that a properly constructed Deductive argument will yield a Conclusion that is Valid or Invalid. There are no other possible conclusions. The Conclusion is valid if, and only if, the Premises are true. Therefore, there can be no uncertainty or probability associated with any of the Premises - they must be true. Even the slightest degree of doubt renders the whole argument invalid. This explains why the language used in the Premises and the Conclusion contains no equivocation, only certainties.

The KCA is not an example of a Deductive Argument. Instead, it is classed as an Inductive Argument. The Wikipedia description of what constitutes an Inductive Argument is very pertinent, MG, so I will reproduce the relevant portions here, line by line, with my understanding of each part. Please critique what I write. Thanks.

Non-deductive logic is reasoning using arguments in which the premises support the conclusion but do not entail it.

If the Conclusion is not logically entailed from the preceding premises (as it must be for a Deductive Argument) then there can be less than 100% certainty concerning the content of the Premises. They can be certain, but they don't have to be. (See below.) That is why the premises of an Inductive Argument can only support it's conclusion and not logically entail it. If they had to be 100% certain, then they would entail it and the KCA would cease to be an Inductive argument - it would become a Deductive one.

Forms of non-deductive logic include statistical syllogism, which argues from generalizations true for the most part, and induction, a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances.

Points of relevance here are the declaration that this is a form of non-deductive logic, that generalizations are used and that these are true for the most part.
Non-deductive logic is permitted to be uncertain, but parts of it can be certain. Only when all parts of the argument become certain does it change from being inductive to deductive. Because elements of the argument are not deductive, they can be probabilistic, dealing with matters that are less than 100% certain.

Certainty is not a generalized concept, it is a specific concept. There cannot be more than one state or condition of certainty. There can only be one state of certainty and it's numerical value is 100% and no other number.
Anything else destroys the meaning of the word, certainty.
This is confirmed by the words, 'true for the most part'. Anything that is mostly true cannot also be 100% true. This would destroy the meaning of the word, true.

An inductive argument is said to be cogent if and only if the truth of the argument's premises would render the conclusion probable (i.e., the argument is strong), and the argument's premises are, in fact, true.

An Inductive argument, even if it's premises are certain, can only conclude with a probability, not a certainty.
We also see that the end result of the argument's conclusion is couched in non-certain terms - strong or weak. However there is an interesting point to consider about the nature of an inductive arguments premises. It seems that they can be true, even though this is not a deductive argument. So, to clarify matters, we appear to have this breakdown of Deductive and Inductive Arguments.
Deductive.
The Premises must be true. The Conclusion, logically derived from the true premises, must also be true.
Inductive.
One, two or all of the Premises are can be true, but this is not vital. Also, even if all the premises are true this does not automatically mean that the conclusion is therefore true. The conclusion of an Inductive argument can never be true and valid in the same way that a Deductive argument's conclusion can be. Therefore, the KCA, even if all of it's premises are true, can never be said to be true, valid and proven. There is always an element of doubt, uncertainty and probability.

OK MG?

To my mind, this prompts the question, "If the conclusion of the KCA is not a proven, logically-deduced, valid certainty, why then is it couched in such a way that it looks as if it is?"

Thanks.

BAA.

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:28 pm

BAA wrote:

OK MG?

To my mind, this prompts the question, "If the conclusion of the KCA is not a proven, logically-deduced, valid certainty, why then is it couched in such a way that it looks as if it is?"

I must admit I have little to no classical logic education. What little I've had would be in the form of programming, which obviously isn't classical logic. That said, thank you for making these points again and I think I finally understand your position on this. The KCA is couched in terms of a deductive argument when in fact it's an inductive argument. Because the first premise is obviously not true in all cases, nothing that follows can be considered deductive. Because of its style we might claim it to be a failed argument just on that basis.

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:06 pm

Hey MG!

I'm no logician either. I just muddle along with what I can get a handle on, until I find out something better.

Nevertheless, even if I don't understand every nuance of the logic in the KCA, I can comprehend enough to smell a rat!

BAA.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile