|
Ivaj
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 03:10 PM
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
So I was thinking we should try something different in this topic. Let's do a topic where we don't debate each other but instead try to help each other reach a better understanding of a a subject from our different perspectives. So let us discuss without trying to win a debate. So no twisting of each others words and no misrepresenting of anyone sort. If possible try to help your opposing view to present his/her case better. So one topic I think we can try this on is the first premise of the Kalam cosmological argument. Is it true or false? Is it both depending on what meaning you assign to the words used in the premise? The premise is: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
I will start the discussion by asking two simple questions:
1. What do we mean by "begins to exist"?
2. What do we mean by cause?
Let's discuss it friendly.
Enjoy!
/Ivaj
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheProblemOfAtheism
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 03:17 PM
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
|
One example I heard Craig use is himself.
He was talking about the atheists trying to refute his argument by fudging up the beginning of one's existence. According to this view, Craig says, he always existed, as the atoms and molecules that composed "Craig" existed before he was born, which is a patently ridiculous claim about his notion of existence.
This example clarifies something about the kind of existence he is talking about. It's not strictly physical, material existence.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Ivaj
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 03:22 PM
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
In that sense it sound like we are talking about something existing that was previously non existing is that particular configuration of atoms and molecules. Right?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
hasbeen
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 03:22 PM
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by TheProblemOfAtheismOne example I heard Craig use is himself.
He was talking about the atheists trying to refute his argument by fudging up the beginning of one's existence. According to this view, Craig says, he always existed, as the atoms and molecules that composed "Craig" existed before he was born, which is a patently ridiculous claim about his notion of existence.
This example clarifies something about the kind of existence he is talking about. It's not strictly physical, material existence.
The problem is the atheist was right so any claim about existence or the beginning of existence is thereby limited to a reorganization of existing material.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lawlessone777
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 03:24 PM
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
|
I typically go with traditional aristotilian answers to these. Aristotle was the first person to really discuss the "four causes" which in his view were:
Efficient Cause - The explanation, event, or thing which brings an effect into being. (i.e. the efficient cause of a rubber ball is the person who made the ball) Material Cause - Which is the substance of which that thing is formed. (i.e. the ball is made of rubber) Formal Cause - Which is the idealism, or "form" we understand the object to be. (i.e. the ball is a ball) Final Cause - The purpose for which that effect was brought into being. (i.e.the ball is a toy)
When the Kalam speaks about a "cause" what it is saying is that anything which begins to exist must have an efficient cause which brings that thing into existence. Put more succinctly into laymens terms, the Kalam is affirming in premise 1 that there is no effect which comes into existence without something bringing that thing into existence.
What the Kalam means by "begins to exist" is fairly straightforward. If P exists at Q then there is no point logically or temporally prior to Q at which P exists.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Ivaj
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 03:29 PM
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
Yeah efficient cause sounds like the one to use if I was going to make a case for the premise. The other 3 don't seem to make the premise true.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
harvey1
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 03:35 PM
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ivaj
1. What do we mean by "begins to exist"?
There exists a dimension t such that at t=0, the size of the universe was vanishing small (i.e., zero radius). When t>0, the universe has some radius. "Begins to exist" means that from t=0 the universe had a non-zero radius. Thus, the universe began to exist from t=0.
Quote: Originally Posted by ivaj
2. What do we mean by cause?
I'd agree to use efficient cause in the case of the Kalam, although causation itself has a wider meaning (e.g., necessary and sufficient conditions).
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheProblemOfAtheism
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 03:37 PM
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Ivaj
In that sense it sound like we are talking about something existing that was previously non existing is that particular configuration of atoms and molecules. Right?
Yes but I think it transcends just physical configuration. To look at it solely in terms of physical configuration is to arbitrarily impose a naturalistic view on cognition and ontology.
Then you have to deal with absurd claims of non-physical objects such as feelings thoughts, ideas etc.
I think what Craig was trying to say was that his notion of existence encompasses physical and non-physical notions of existence, because Craig's identification with a particular arrangement of atoms is a distinctly non-physical, non-physically justified identification (although physically detected).
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lawlessone777
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 03:37 PM
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
Quote: Yeah efficient cause sounds like the one to use if I was going to make a case for the premise. The other 3 don't seem to make the premise true.
That's precisely where the confusion comes in when it comes to Premise 1 of the Kalam. You see everything which begins to exist must have an efficient cause that brings that effect into being. Otherwise what you have is an effect that has no cause. Suppose you heard a loud explosion outside your window, turned to your friend and asked, "What caused that explosion?" And they responded with. "Nothing caused that explosion." You'd think they were pretty mad.
However while all effects must have an efficient cause, not all effects necessarily require any of the other three causes. A physical effect (crying) can be brought about by an immaterial cause (a sad story). There is nothing physical about the story that causes the tears, for example someone speaks a sad story to you, the vibration of the air which is brought into being by the person running their breath over their vocal chords doesn't somehow affect your body which causes an emotional response.
Something doesn't need a final cause either. An effect could be brought into existence by an efficient cause without any final cause in mind. Gravity doesn't have any particular purpose in mind when it causes rocks to fall from cliffs.
Whether everything requires a formal cause is something of a bit of a debate. Aristotle argued that while you may not understand what exactly the formal cause of something is, nevertheless it does actually have a formal cause.
And so what the Kalam effectively does in Premise 1 of it's argument is nothing more than affirm the reality that any effect which begins to exist, must have a cause which brings that thing into being. It does not speak on physical matter, or final/formal causes, all it seeks to do is affirm the metaphysical reality of causality.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
emailestthoume
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 03:40 PM
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Quote: There exists a dimension t such that at t=0, the size of the universe was vanishing small (i.e., zero radius). When t>0, the universe has some radius. "Begins to exist" means that from t=0 the universe had a non-zero radius. Thus, the universe began to exist from t=0.
I am quite confused. Are you saying that the universe beginning to exist means it went from a non-existent state to an existent one? If so, is this inconsistent with the big bang theory that (I thought) said that there was no point when the universe had 0 radius as its existence was simultaneous with the first moment of time.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Ivaj
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 03:45 PM
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
I think it is excellent to use the observable universe as an example of what we mean by begin to exist since that is what the argument moves one to eventually. I t sounds like we are saying that begin to exist in that case is to go from a configuration with no space and time to a configuration with space and time. The efficient cause would in this case be the explanation of this beginning. If it is package this way I could find it plausible that the premise holds.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lawlessone777
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 03:57 PM
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
Quote: I think it is excellent to use the observable universe as an example of what we mean by begin to exist since that is what the argument moves one to eventually. I t sounds like we are saying that begin to exist in that case is to go from a configuration with no space and time to a configuration with space and time. The efficient cause would in this case be the explanation of this beginning. If it is package this way I could find it plausible that the premise holds.
Actually appealing to non-transcendent causation (causality within the universe) is a common trap to fall in when discussing this subject. In the second part of the Kalam argument the very first thing that the defender must do is conclude that the cause of the universe must be something which does not have any properties associated with the universe. Otherwise what you do is presuppose an eternally existing aspect of the universe which never began to exist, and then presuppose that those pre-existing conditions operated in some causal manner to bring about the universe in totality.
Appealing to causes which exist inside the universe as a "guidebook" for a transcendent cause is impossible. By it's very nature a transcendent cause is something that does not abide by, or is required to ascribe to, any rule or law that exists inside the universe. It pre-existed these rules, so to force it to ascribe to them created an automatic logical paradox. It's for this reason that I believe some atheists appeal to this logic. Apply temporal, non-transcendent causal rules to a transcendent cause, you get a philosophical "404 file not found" error, declare that this transcendent cause could thusly not exist and appeal to agnosticism.
The thing is, this appeals to even causes that are un-intelligent.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Ivaj
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 04:12 PM
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
So there seems to be a bit of a terminology switch when you earlier talked about efficient cause and now you are using the terminology transcendent cause. What does this mean in relation to efficient cause? What does this add?
In general when someone do a terminology switch like that I go a bit suspicious of the intentions. So when you build up your argument I would advice you to explain this terminology switch in order to avoid suspicions. It would increase the chances of it being persuasive to someone like me.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lawlessone777
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 04:32 PM
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
Quote: So there seems to be a bit of a terminology switch when you earlier talked about efficient cause and now you are using the terminology transcendent cause. What does this mean in relation to efficient cause? What does this add?
In general when someone do a terminology switch like that I go a bit suspicious of the intentions. So when you build up your argument I would advice you to explain this terminology switch in order to avoid suspicions. It would increase the chances of it being persuasive to someone like me.
Well an efficient cause can be transcendent, or non-transcendent. In every circumstance when we talk about causes with regards to the kalam argument we always mean efficient causes, so when I say "transcendent cause" you are correct it would be more correct for me to say "transcendent efficient cause".
So to break it down into very technical terminology what Premise 1 of the Kalam is putting forth is: When something P exists at Q there is no logical, or temporal point prior to Q at which P exists; P requiring an efficient cause which brings it into existence, and holds no properties associated with P after time Q.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
harvey1
|
|
Posted 06/08/12 at 04:38 PM
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by emailestthoume
I am quite confused. Are you saying that the universe beginning to exist means it went from a non-existent state to an existent one? If so, is this inconsistent with the big bang theory that (I thought) said that there was no point when the universe had 0 radius as its existence was simultaneous with the first moment of time.
According to Alex Vilenkin's quantum tunneling universe hypothesis, the universe had zero radius at t=0 where tunneling occurred and after t=0 the universe began to inflate (after inflation the traditional hot big bang began). See here for his explanation.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
