Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2016, 05:04:01 am »


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.

So basically you argue that it's not another version of first mover because it doesn't use any particular mover, only a generic deistic god? It doesn't sound like a great rebuttal.

You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

1

lucious

  • ***
  • 4512 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2016, 03:27:51 am »


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.

So basically you argue that it's not another version of first mover because it doesn't use any particular mover, only a generic deistic god? It doesn't sound like a great rebuttal.


It's an exercise in metaphysics, not revealed theology. It aims to reach a conclusion that is philosophical in nature, albeit one sufficient to refute atheism.

2
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2016, 06:48:38 am »

It's an exercise in metaphysics, not revealed theology. It aims to reach a conclusion that is philosophical in nature, albeit one sufficient to refute atheism.

But how does it confirms your statement that it's not another variation of first mover argument?

KCA indeed refutes atheism. Let me give another argument which refutes atheism:

P1. Atheism is false or 2+2=5
P2. 2+2=/=5
C. Atheism is false

:D
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

3

Supermonkey92

  • **
  • 33 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2016, 12:24:37 pm »
Again, some basic philosophy would actually help here. There is a difference between a logically valid and true argument

4
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2016, 12:58:02 pm »
Again, some basic philosophy would actually help here. There is a difference between a logically valid and true argument

I would use a word "sound" instead of "true" but generally I agree. However in this topic I'm generous and I grant that all premises of KCA are true, and that this cause must be immaterial and timeless. Even then I don't see any other explanation for why it must be a mind other than assertions that only minds can do it.
You see a grammar or spelling error in my post? Feel free to point it out, I'm still learning.

5

lucious

  • ***
  • 4512 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2016, 10:59:03 pm »
He gives an argument for why the cause must be personal-he rules out an impersonal cause.

6

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2017, 05:47:24 pm »
Immaterial, timeless mind is IMO a terrible explanation for the existence of the universe.

First of all it goes against the best scientific theories of what mind is, i.e., a product of the activity of physical brains. Of course, this is not proof that immaterial mind is impossible, but it does put the burden of proof on those who say that such a thing as immaterial mind is even possible, let alone the cause of the existence of the physical universe. There is nothing in our experience that would suggest that minds can cause material things to exist anyway.

Secondly, the idea of timeless mind is incoherent. That is, the essence of mind is thought, and thought is a process, and processes are time dependent. This means the concept of mind is an essentially time dependent concept and hence "timeless mind" is an incoherent concept.

At the very least, "immaterial, timeless mind" is a very mysterious concept. Admittedly a universe that seems to have popped into existence out of nothing is mysterious also, and the counter that the universe didn't pop out of anything and has always existed is a bit mysterious, too. However, suggesting one mystery in an an attempt to explain another is unparsimonious. Therefore, eternal (not sempiternal), uncaused universe theory should be preferred on the basis of Occam's razor.  Of course, that's a rule of thumb, not a law, but it does put the burden of proof on the one arguing for needlessly pushing the mystery back a step.

My view is that the universe itself, as a whole, is most likely eternal and uncaused. It bears it's reason for it's existence within itself, and the fact that it has a beginning in time is simply a metaphysical necessity based on the impossibility of an infinite regress of temporal moments (see my thread "Is the beginning of the universe metaphysically necessary?")
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

7

lucious

  • ***
  • 4512 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2017, 12:43:00 am »
None of that matters--Craig makes pure deductive arguments.

8

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2017, 05:55:25 am »
None of that matters--Craig makes pure deductive arguments.

Of course it all matters because even though the Kalam is a deductive argument, its premises are not. The idea that everything that begins to exist has a cause is an inductive inference and given that the beginning of the universe is a beginning like no other in our experience, it is dubious.

But more to the point of my last post, the part where he argues for the cause being an immaterial, timeless mind is not a part of syllogism per se. The syllogism IF sound, and I'm dubious, would only prove a cause. It does not prove that the cause is what Craig is saying it must be.
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

9

lucious

  • ***
  • 4512 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2017, 07:10:24 am »
Craig performs a conceptual analysis of what the cause of the universe must be like. This is pure deduction--ruling out the negations.

10

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2017, 07:46:27 am »
Craig performs a conceptual analysis of what the cause of the universe must be like. This is pure deduction--ruling out the negations.

No it's not. He does not offer any deductive argument for the cause of the universe being a timeless, immaterial mind. He simply asserts that it must be so, or at least that is what he does in all of his debates. If he gives a deductive argument for it, I'd like to see it.

Also, you seem argue as if you think that a deductive argument is automatically a sound argument. It's like all you have to do is say, "It's a deductive argument" and then we have to accept that the conclusion is true.

I also have a problem with WLC's argument that you can accept the conclusion of a deductive argument if you find the premises to be more likely than their negations.  I disagree. First of all it's kind of hinckey to just intuitively assign a likelihood to premises that must in actuality be either true (probability 1) or false (probability 0). Yes, you can think of it in terms of confidence levels, but that is pretty subjective, making the whole enterprise questionable. Frankly, I wouldn't accept the conclusion of any deductive argument unless I was nearly certain of both premises. Certainly your confidence level can be no higher than your confidence in the least certain of your premises. And I'm not at all convinced that it doesn't make more sense to multiply you confidence levels. For example if I assigned a confidence of .8 to both of my premises, I should only have a .64 confidence in my conclusion. In science conclusions are usually not considered acceptable at anything below .95 confidence.

Frankly, I think anybody who thinks they can be even close to certain of the existence of God based on the Kalam argument is not thinking very clearly.
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

11

lucious

  • ***
  • 4512 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2017, 08:34:17 pm »
In his live debates he may not set out a formal deduction, but you can see he still reasons like this.

He rules out the negation--thus necessitating the conclusion e.g

The cause of the universe is either temporal or timeless.

The cause of the universe is not temporal (contradictory)

Therefore, the universe cause is timeless.

12

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2017, 09:24:09 pm »
In his live debates he may not set out a formal deduction, but you can see he still reasons like this.

He rules out the negation--thus necessitating the conclusion e.g

The cause of the universe is either temporal or timeless.

The cause of the universe is not temporal (contradictory)

Therefore, the universe cause is timeless.

Why would it be a contradiction for the cause of the universe to be temporal? I mean it sort of makes sense to me  if you think of the universe as including time and space and whatever created the universe also created time and space, but I'm not sure that is the only possibility. I'd probably accept that as most likely, but not certain.

But, of course, I believe the universe is uncaused, so....
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 08:09:26 am by bruce culver »
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

13

lucious

  • ***
  • 4512 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2017, 01:16:25 am »
In his live debates he may not set out a formal deduction, but you can see he still reasons like this.

He rules out the negation--thus necessitating the conclusion e.g

The cause of the universe is either temporal or timeless.

The cause of the universe is not temporal (contradictory)

Therefore, the universe cause is timeless.

Why would it be a contradiction for the cause of the universe to be temporal? I mean it sort of makes sense to me  if you think of the universe as including time and space and whatever created the universe also created time and space, but I'm not sure that is the only possibility. I'd probably accept that as most likely, but not certain.

But, of course, I believe the universe is uncaused, so....

Whatever created the first event couldn't be condtioned by time. I think tied into this is the personal nature of the cause as well, since the only way the counterfactual scenario where the universe doesn't exist, and the cause exists sans the universe, is if the cause is personal. That is the only ontological condition where the cause and effect can be counterfactually disentangled.

14

aleph naught

  • ****
  • 7392 Posts
  • For the glory of the Canadian empire.
    • View Profile
Re: Where is the evidence that an immaterial, timeless, mind created universe?
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2017, 09:52:01 am »
Whatever [caused] the first event couldn't be condtioned by time. I think tied into this is the personal nature of the cause as well, since the only way the counterfactual scenario where the universe doesn't exist, and the cause exists sans the universe, is if the cause is personal. That is the only ontological condition where the cause and effect can be counterfactually disentangled.

That leap from cause to creator is where I think the argument is at its weakest. So Craig points out that the causal relationship here must be object-event causation. But why think the object must be a person? He seems to assume that persons are the only sort of thing that can stand in that sort of relationship, but why should anyone think that?

Edit: In fact, to motivate agent causation in the first place as a form of LFW, don't incompatibilists have to point to examples of impersonal objects standing in object-event causal relationships? If object-event causation must be unique to persons, then it is a very queer sort of causation that we have no reason to believe in other than a very roundabout argument from LFW. That's a very tenuous thing to base the Kalam on.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 09:55:48 am by aleph naught »