Where it is?

Can you please link some paper which proves it?

I mean seriously,without it KCA is just typical god of the gaps argument.

"Once again science can't explain something. Therefore we're going to say that goddidit! Nevermind we tried it for centuries and always failed"

Really, you can't just say that because we don't have the answer, goddidit is somehow correct by default. That's now how it works. I can just say that all our reality is a matrix and aliens who did it live in perfectly explained, eternal universe. For multiple reasons it's much better expalation than "goddidit".

So I'm asking: Where is any scientific evidence that disembodied, immaterial, timeless, powerful, inteligent mind created our universe?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2016, 05:18:26 pm by UnreasonableFaith »
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

1

lucious

  • ***
  • 4490 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2016, 09:28:08 pm »
No, this is not a god of the gaps.


Craig has responded to this tired and cliched criticism over and over. The KCA is a deductive argument--if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. It's not relying on a "gap" or "not knowing" something. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, don't think it's explanatory etc. All that matters is if the premises are more plausible than their negations.

The only laziness shown here is by the atheists, who think repeating epigrams and forum-tropes constitutes any sort of argument.

2
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2016, 06:57:39 am »
No, I just gave more plausible alternative.

I think multidimensional eternal creators of universes are more likely than disembodied, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, spaceless, timeless minds. Therefore belief in god is irrational.

Also

P1. Everything that begins has material cause
P2. Universe begins to exist
C. Therefore universe has material cause

How can material cause be material and immaterial at the same time? Or maybe you're going to still argue that we ever observed creation ex nihilo? That's boring.
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

3

hatsoff

  • ****
  • 6144 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2016, 05:20:59 pm »
Where it is?

Can you please link some paper which proves it?

I mean seriously,without it KCA is just typical god of the gaps argument.

"Once again science can't explain something. Therefore we're going to say that goddidit! Nevermind we tried it for centuries and always failed"

Really, you can't just say that because we don't have the answer, goddidit is somehow correct by default. That's now how it works. I can just say that all our reality is a matrix and aliens who did it live in perfectly explained, eternal universe. For multiple reasons it's much better expalation than "goddidit".

So I'm asking: Where is any scientific evidence that disembodied, immaterial, timeless, powerful, inteligent mind created our universe?

The KCA is not a god of the gaps argument.  It does not say that the god hypothesis is "correct by default."

I am curious, did you ever get around to actually reading any version of the KCA (e.g. in Reasonable Faith or Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology), or are you still going by the youtube video you saw?  I really think you should take time to read the argument.  You might also want to see what professional philosophers who are atheists have to say in response to it.  You will notice, among other things, that none of them accuses Craig of arguing god-of-the-gaps.
In preparation for the upcoming holiday, I shall eat a licorice-flavored Cadbury creme egg every six hours until Easter.

4

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2016, 06:02:30 pm »
I've never viewed the Kalam as a god-of-the-gaps type argument.  Heck, it doesn't even argue for a god.  It argues for a "prime mover" or "first cause" and then essentially, just boldly asserts that this thing is the god of *insert arguer's religion here*.  The part you seem to be objecting to is the assertion that this cause is an immaterial, timeless mind, and that this mind is god.  That objection is certainly a strong one.  There is no evidence to show that the cause of the universe (assuming that there is one) would be anything even remotely similar to that.

That being said, the Kalam has many more problems than just that. 
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

5
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2016, 07:09:53 pm »

The KCA is not a god of the gaps argument.  It does not say that the god hypothesis is "correct by default."

I am curious, did you ever get around to actually reading any version of the KCA (e.g. in Reasonable Faith or Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology), or are you still going by the youtube video you saw?  I really think you should take time to read the argument.  You might also want to see what professional philosophers who are atheists have to say in response to it.  You will notice, among other things, that none of them accuses Craig of arguing god-of-the-gaps.

Apparently not even WLC knows the version of KCA you refer to because he always uses the one I discuss here and in other topics.

My objection from first post regards last step of the argument.

Universe has a cause
This cause must be a powerful, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, mind.

Why it must be such an object? Because I can't imagine otherwise. Concededly science proves over and over that our intuitions fail miserably when applied to hardcore physics, yet who cares, this time it's going to work. No science indicates such explanation, but I don't mind.

To me it sounds quite like a god of the gaps or something similar.

But anyway it's probably the least important objection on my list.
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

6

hatsoff

  • ****
  • 6144 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2016, 07:46:25 pm »

The KCA is not a god of the gaps argument.  It does not say that the god hypothesis is "correct by default."

I am curious, did you ever get around to actually reading any version of the KCA (e.g. in Reasonable Faith or Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology), or are you still going by the youtube video you saw?  I really think you should take time to read the argument.  You might also want to see what professional philosophers who are atheists have to say in response to it.  You will notice, among other things, that none of them accuses Craig of arguing god-of-the-gaps.

Apparently not even WLC knows the version of KCA you refer to because he always uses the one I discuss here and in other topics.

WLC wrote the versions in Reasonable Faith and in Blackwell.  These are fairly lengthy, at 45 and 101 pages, respectively.  If you prefer not to read something that long, he gives a simplified version in Chapter 4 of On Guard which is only 27 double-spaced pages long.

The last time I spoke with you, you said you were getting your information from this video.  That's fine---it's not an inaccurate video---but it is only an introduction giving a brief outline of the Kalam's main points.  For the rest of the Kalam argument, you will have to do some reading.  I'm sorry, but there's just no way around that.

And until you decide to actually do that reading, your ignorance of the argument is going to be plainly obvious to anyone who has done the reading.

Quote
My objection from first post regards last step of the argument.

Universe has a cause
This cause must be a powerful, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, mind.

Why it must be such an object?

You wouldn't be asking this if you had read what WLC wrote on the subject.  See, for example, Reasonable Faith pp152-154, Blackwell pp191-194, or On Guard pp99-100.  Your question above is answered in any and all of those three places.
In preparation for the upcoming holiday, I shall eat a licorice-flavored Cadbury creme egg every six hours until Easter.

7

hatsoff

  • ****
  • 6144 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2016, 08:08:47 pm »
An even more simplified version than found in On Guard is available online here.  He answers your question above as follows:

What properties must this cause of the universe possess? This cause must be itself uncaused because we’ve seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is therefore the Uncaused First Cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy.

Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

This is admittedly hard for us to imagine. But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless. His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.

Ghazali’s cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe.


Let me add that the above quotation is only *part* of his defense for the first cause being timeless/spaceless/immaterial/personal/powerful.  For the rest of WLC's defense of these properties, you'll have to read the more comprehensive versions in Reasonable Faith or Blackwell.
In preparation for the upcoming holiday, I shall eat a licorice-flavored Cadbury creme egg every six hours until Easter.

8

lucious

  • ***
  • 4490 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2016, 11:00:36 pm »
  It argues for a "prime mover" or "first cause" and then essentially, just boldly asserts that this thing is the god of *insert arguer's religion here*. 


It doesn't do this. A frequently touted strawman.

9
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2016, 04:34:41 am »
I don't think this excerpt answers anything.

Once again:

No evidence, no observation, no scientific theory, not even hypothesis which says it's the case. If anything, we have every reason to think it's impossible. Only "My logic tells me that's how it works". Why it must be a mind? Because I can't imagine other mechanism. Because it's obvious that the beginning of physical reality must be something we are all very familiar with and no surprise can happen.

This is totally god of the gaps.

And remember, people use KCA to convince others that believe in god is reasonable and not only that but it's so obvious that god exists, that it makes all sense to submit your life to this god.

« Last Edit: November 15, 2016, 04:41:49 am by UnreasonableFaith »
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

10

Supermonkey92

  • **
  • 33 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2016, 06:42:34 am »
I don't think this excerpt answers anything.

Once again:

No evidence, no observation, no scientific theory, not even hypothesis which says it's the case. If anything, we have every reason to think it's impossible. Only "My logic tells me that's how it works". Why it must be a mind? Because I can't imagine other mechanism. Because it's obvious that the beginning of physical reality must be something we are all very familiar with and no surprise can happen.

This is totally god of the gaps.

And remember, people use KCA to convince others that believe in god is reasonable and not only that but it's so obvious that god exists, that it makes all sense to submit your life to this god.

You should really read Craig's essay from the Blackwell Companion. There is no excuse, commonsenseatheism has linked a free pdf.

Its such a shame when tired, strawman attacks are consistently thrown at Kalam, and when objections that have repeatedly been dealt with are so popular.

The Kalam is a philosophical argument, and a deductive one to boot. There is no place for observation, scientific theory or hypothesis because they are used inductively. This is a deductive argument. If the premises are true then the conclusion follows neccessarily. To assert that you must have scientific evidence, hypothesis or observations in order to believe something is scientism which is demonstrably false because it is self refuting. So calling for a scientific theory for the deduction that the cause of the universe is a mind is irrelevant. This isnt a scientific argument. If you have a problem with the argument for a mind, give one.

Again, please read Craig's essay. He even has many free on this website. He argues that the cause must be timesless and spaceless because time and space came into existence. Have a problem? Point it out. The next step is to think of the candidates for an immaterial cause. The only two options he thinks are on the table are abstract objects or minds. Dont think they exhaust all the options? Provide another one.

The argument ia not a God of the gaps, precisely because it reasons what we do know about science rather than what we dont know.

Craig doesnt think tye Kalam gets you to a religion. This is a straw man.

11
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2016, 08:05:18 am »
The fact you can label it as deductive argument doesn't mean it somehow magically becomes a sound argument. Why should I accept that only mind meets Craig's criterion?

Few hundreds years ago people would argue that only intelligence can create intelligence, therefore intelligent creator must exist. Now apologists argue that only minds can creates universes.

I don't have to propose any better explanation to be unconvinced by this one. Again, not long ago people would say "give us better explanation than intelligent designer or be quiet"

And please don't say that Kalam has anything to do with science. It's indefensible position. if anything, it's one big abuse of science. To my knowledge science doesn't say disembodied, immaterial, uncaused, spaceless, timeless minds are possible and it definitely doesn't say that one was tinkering with creation of our universe. But I discuss it in other topics.

Also:

"You want some actual evidence to confirm this claim? What an awful scientism!"
« Last Edit: November 15, 2016, 08:44:30 am by UnreasonableFaith »
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

12

Supermonkey92

  • **
  • 33 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2016, 11:26:26 am »
I recommend a community philosophy class that focuses on logic. In fact, you may be able to find some youtube videos. Please learn what a deductive argument is and the. difference between logically valid and true. Most importantly tje distinction between rhetoric and argument, which was what your last post was! With a smidge of emotion.

13

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2016, 02:52:25 pm »
  It argues for a "prime mover" or "first cause" and then essentially, just boldly asserts that this thing is the god of *insert arguer's religion here*. 


It doesn't do this. A frequently touted strawman.

It does do that, despite your unfortunate misunderstandings of it.  It is not a straw man to say that the argument does what it does.  If you'd like to look at the argument in more detail, feel free to start a thread about it.  I'd be happy to completely deconstruct the Kalam (in any of its forms) and tear it apart bit by bit.  Perhaps you could entitle the thread "AiL's attempt to kill Kalam".  It would be cute.
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

14

lucious

  • ***
  • 4490 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2016, 06:17:10 pm »
  It argues for a "prime mover" or "first cause" and then essentially, just boldly asserts that this thing is the god of *insert arguer's religion here*. 


It doesn't do this. A frequently touted strawman.

It does do that, despite your unfortunate misunderstandings of it.  It is not a straw man to say that the argument does what it does.  If you'd like to look at the argument in more detail, feel free to start a thread about it.  I'd be happy to completely deconstruct the Kalam (in any of its forms) and tear it apart bit by bit.  Perhaps you could entitle the thread "AiL's attempt to kill Kalam".  It would be cute.


No, the argument does not "insert" any particular abrahamic deity. It is two premises leading to a conclusion, and the conclusion derives a few theologically significant properties. That is all it proves, which isn't too much but of great philosophical significance.



Unless, of course, you can quote Craig as saying this proves the Christian God over Muslim God, for example. Barring any quote, ill expect a retraction of the statement.


As of now, it looks to me like the unfortunately common arrogant overconfidence we've come to expect from atheists.