Archived

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Read 2810 times

archicastor1

  • *
  • 1 Posts
    • View Profile
Bayesian logic disproves the KCA
« on: November 29, 2017, 07:09:24 pm »
According to Richard Carrier's use of  Bayesian logic, the KCA can be refuted this way:

“Everything that begins has a cause” and “all existence began” and “only disembodied minds can precede the beginning of time” are all hypotheses. Not one of them ever proven likely. We don’t know if time is the sort of thing that can even have a cause; the notion is not even intelligible. If it began, time in fact seems necessarily causeless, since a cause is by definition what precedes an effect in time. Many other things may well be causeless, too. We only know how things we’ve seen in this universe, within time behave. We cannot infer from that how things behave outside this universe, or outside time.

Similarly, we only know this universe began. But we have no evidence that this universe is everything that exists (and theism already presupposes that it is not), or that time itself began with our universe. And we don’t even have any evidence that disembodied minds can exist, much less that they could exist before time began, any more than anything else could. And if we suppose God created time simultaneously with the beginning of time rather than ever existing before time began, then anything could do that, even something embodied, or mindless.

In other words, reduced to hypotheses, cosmological arguments get us nowhere, (...) Only evidence can change that conclusion.

1

lucious

  • ***
  • 4597 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bayesian logic disproves the KCA
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2017, 05:43:54 am »
This post is fraught with errors, blunders, and careless assumptions.

Firstly, there is the abject skepticism regarding the causal principle. The notion that time can't have  a cause is just a blunt declaration of incredulity, and to suggest that a cause must necessarily be before its effect begs the question in favour of a Humean view of causation.

2

Tom Paine

  • ***
  • 2649 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Bayesian logic disproves the KCA
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2019, 04:48:32 am »
This post is fraught with errors, blunders, and careless assumptions.

Firstly, there is the abject skepticism regarding the causal principle. The notion that time can't have  a cause is just a blunt declaration of incredulity, and to suggest that a cause must necessarily be before its effect begs the question in favour of a Humean view of causation.

There is no "abject skepticism" regarding the causal principle with regard to the type of beginning that informs the inductive inference, i.e., the existential beginnings of discrete complex proper parts of the universe. The skepticism is with regard to whether it can be extended beyond such beginnings to the beginning of the universe as a whole. There's good reason to think it cannot be so extended because the two types of beginnings in question are different in some very essential ways.

How about this argument:

1. Everything that exists exists in time and space
2. If a Creator existed it would necessarily exist outside of time and space
3. No Creator exists

This is just as valid a syllogism as the Kalam. 1. is just as universally attested as P1 of the Kalam.  Do you think it is sound? I guess not. But why? If you find the answer then you will know why I don't believe the KCA is sound.

Why your abject skepticism with regard to the spacio-temporal existence principle?