11 yr old Genius Attempts to Prove the Existence of God

[wincel]

Even philosophers who are critics of the Kalam cosmological argument, don't characterize it as a 'god of the gaps' argument. Because it isn't.



That's a common response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, here is my wording of a common explanation....

An infinite regress of causality would not result in anything exist.

Naturalistic causes are mechanistic (meaning they have no agency).

The the first cause can't be natural, because then that natural causes is mechanistic (meaning, they have no independent agency).

Seeing as it is not necessary for the universe to exist, the exist of the universe was created via agency (ie. Choice).



The Kalam Cosmological argument is an argument based in logic, about how the universe began to exist, it doesn't apply to anything else.

No offense, have you read about the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Again, I don't think it's an argument without flaws, but I think it's the strongest philosophical argument for God's existence.

I don't think you see how naive such arguments regarding "first cause" are. Our entire notion of causality is directly tied to a specific dimension of our existence, time. Yet, we now understand time to be essentially a mathematically imaginary dimension (like in complex numbers) if the 3 macroscopic dimensions of space are real. To ask about a "time before time" is absurd. The entire idea of the universe evolving as a 3d object in time is a classical farce. We view it this way as observers moving along a timeline, but the whole universe has no such absolute time evolution. In fact, relativity of simultaneity prevents this from being a well defined concept. We know it is macroscopically a 4d object (maybe if you go really big it may be 5d, and fundamentally there seem to be 6 rolled up small dimensions as well.). That object in 4d does not experience any causal evolution along any additional dimension as far as anyone knows. It simply is. And it follows rules. That's all.

Consider the following thought experiment that may be used to illustrate the 4 dimensions of spacetime.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riet...utnam_argument

Furthermore, at the singilarity level, the universe likely had more than 4 dimensions and had even more bizarre rules. Ideas of classical causality may not even apply here. Philosophically, we may be experiencing a mathematical structure existing within an infinite regress of structures with no cause to exist other than that they must in some platonic sense. Nobody actually knows. None of us is qualified to comment on what, if anything, is external to the observable universe, nor are we qualified to make claims about the very early universe. It is all speculation, but we do know that time breaks down, and since classical causality is rooted in a conventional understanding of time, it probably doesn't apply here.

[JoshSP1985]

Below: A visual representation of me trying to understand posts in this thread

[adimare]

Even philosophers who are critics of the Kalam cosmological argument, don't characterize it as a 'god of the gaps' argument. Because it isn't.

We're not discussing the Kalam cosmological argument (I just addressed it in my last paragraph), we're discussing the random 11 year old kid's argument. Either way, it seems to me that any argument that takes advantage of a phenomenon that's not yet understood (ie: the beginning of the Universe) to conveniently insert God as an explanation can be described as a God of the gaps argument.

That's a common response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, here is my wording of a common explanation....

An infinite regress of causality would not result in anything exist.

Naturalistic causes are mechanistic (meaning they have no agency).

The the first cause can't be natural, because then that natural causes is mechanistic (meaning, they have no independent agency).

Seeing as it is not necessary for the universe to exist, the exist of the universe was created via agency (ie. Choice).

You didn't address my point at all and are just repeating what you'd said before. The only difference is that you used italics this time.

The Kalam Cosmological argument is an argument based in logic, about how the universe began to exist, it doesn't apply to anything else.

So I bring up events that occur naturally that don't have a causal necessity and are clearly not done via agency (I think someone else mentioned virtual particles in a vacuum as well which is also a pretty good example) and you just say "oh I get to dismiss those, this rule only applies to the beginning of the Universe". How convenient.

Once again: if I can find non causal events that are also not done via agency in nature today, why do you get to say that the beginning of the Universe had to be one of those two?

No offense, have you read about the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Non taken, and I have not.

Again, I don't think it's an argument without flaws, but I think it's the strongest philosophical argument for God's existence.

How sad.

[BrocepCurls]

Lol how convenient for most theists that "God exists necessarily, not contingently, and so wouldnt need a cause in the same way the universe does". What a nice, utterly arbitrary distinction. Do people actually fall for this stuff? Let me guess...they hear fancy words from metaphysics (which one might call babble) such as "contingent", and so they give up and dont analyze arguments like this for what they are actually worth, which is nothing.

I was playing devils advocate like I said, but I guess the reason theists home in on that point is that modern cosmology appears to suggest a past-finite universe that had a beginning (that isn't really the case when you dive into it, simply that the classical GR description of the universe is past-finite). Until this past century many atheists would argue that the universe existed necessarily and infinitely and thus doesn't need a cause. But since the classical description of the universe seems to have come from a single point a measurable amount of time ago, now theists will try and make the case that therefore the universe is in fact contingent and requires a cause. That cause being something that exists necessarily, just like atheists used to say the universe existed.

[numberguy12]

I was playing devils advocate like I said, but I guess the reason theists home in on that point is that modern cosmology appears to suggest a past-finite universe that had a beginning (that isn't really the case when you dive into it, simply that the classical GR description of the universe is past-finite). Until this past century many atheists would argue that the universe existed necessarily and infinitely and thus doesn't need a cause. But since the classical description of the universe seems to have come from a single point a measurable amount of time ago, now theists will try and make the case that therefore the universe is in fact contingent and requires a cause. That cause being something that exists necessarily, just like atheists used to say the universe existed.

Notice this is different than the argument in the post I quoted above. The one I quoted was attempting to make a point solely using logic and metaphysics. Now there is an attempt to bring scientific theories in, such as big bang cosmology. Surely "existence", however that term is defined, need not start with a big bang. Time itself can be tricky as wincel was making a point about of above, but besides that, heck you could have infinite cyclical universes prior to the big bang for all we know. The answer is we just dont know. Thus to say the universe has to have had a beginning is unjustified, even within big bang cosmology, and as talked about above, if just one assumption is faulty or unwarranted, the entire argument collapses.

[miscinbro]

Notice this is different than the argument in the post I quoted above. The one I quoted was attempting to make a point solely using logic and metaphysics. Now there is an attempt to bring scientific theories in, such as big bang cosmology. Surely "existence", however that term is defined, need not start with a big bang. Time itself can be tricky as wincel was making a point about of above, but besides that, heck you could have infinite cyclical universes prior to the big bang for all we know. The answer is we just dont know. Thus to say the universe has to have had a beginning is unjustified, even within big bang cosmology, and as talked about above, if just one assumption is faulty or unwarranted, the entire argument collapses.

The answer is indeed “we just don’t know.” Anyone who tries to insert a “god” answer into that space has an unjustifiable agenda. Sadly it seems that people keep falling for this. If you feel the need to believe in whatever God you want, fine, but just call it faith - trying to justify it this way only makes it look stupider.

[BetaAsPhuck]

If you think the argument has flaws.....then it means nothing, this is how proofs work.

Philosophical arguments aren't akin to math, as I'm sure you know. They can't be verified objectively, in the same way.

There is (as you probably known) numerous counter arguments, on both sides, given when the Kalam Cosmological argument is presented and disputed. Again, philosophical arguments aren't not objectively verifiable in the same way that math arguments are.

I don't use the argument, however like I said I think it's the strongest philosophical argument for God's existence that I've come across.

[adimare]

Gonna play devil's advocate with you here since it might be more interesting than discussing the kalam cosmological argument.

I don't think you see how naive such arguments regarding "first cause" are. Our entire notion of causality is directly tied to a specific dimension of our existence, time. Yet, we now understand time to be essentially a mathematically imaginary dimension (like in complex numbers) if the 3 macroscopic dimensions of space are real. To ask about a "time before time" is absurd. The entire idea of the universe evolving as a 3d object in time is a classical farce.

Don't fully agree with this. The fact that we usa a particular model to make it easier for us to study something doesn't mean that we actually live in that model. Keep in mind that in that very model time is measured in meters for convenience sake, and no one would argue that time is actually a distance that you could measure with a yardstick.

And even within that model, there's definitely something special about the time dimension. I could bring up something as simple as the fact that we can remember stuff from the past, but not stuff from the future. And all observed matter only seems to travel in one direction of that dimension (tachyons haven't been detected yet, and even though you probably drew a Feynman diagram at some point in school where you described the interaction of a particle and an anti-particle as a single particle jumping from traveling forward in time to traveling backwards in time, most physicists believe that's just a very convenient way of modeling the event, not convinced that anti-particles are actually particles traveling backwards in time).

We view it this way as observers moving along a timeline, but the whole universe has no such absolute time evolution. In fact, relativity of simultaneity prevents this from being a well defined concept.

How so? Keep in mind that the relativity of simultaneity only applies to spacelike events (events where it's impossible for a ray of light to travel between one event and the other before it occurs). Timelike and lightlike events will always occur in the same exact order no matter what frame of reference you choose to study them (ie: if you shoot a watermelon with a gun and it explodes, there's no frame of reference where the watermelon exploded before you shot it). I'd argue that in a tiny space like what'd you'd deal with in a singularity, there would be an over-abundance of timelike and lightlike events.

You may argue that it's just wishful thinking to assume that the stuff we've figured out in our current Universe might be useful to figure out what happened before it came to be, and you'd be 100% right. It's probably a lost cause, but I'd say it's the equivalent of losing your contact lens on your walk home from a late night party, and then going back and looking for it just in the patches of the road where there are street lights. Sure, it's more likely that you dropped it somewhere were there's no light, but since it's impossible to find it there, might as well try the illuminated spots just in case.

[BetaAsPhuck]

We're not discussing the Kalam cosmological argument (I just addressed it in my last paragraph), we're discussing the random 11 year old kid's argument.

His argument is the Kalam cosmological argument.

So I bring up events that occur naturally that don't have a causal necessity and are clearly not done via agency (I think someone else mentioned virtual particles in a vacuum as well which is also a pretty good example) and you just say "oh I get to dismiss those, this rule only applies to the beginning of the Universe". How convenient.

No, it's not convenient.

The argument is literally only addressing the beginning of the universe, you're discussing something different. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an attempt to discern anything other than the beginning of the universe.

Non taken, and I have not.

I would advise reading or listening about it.

It's been around for a while, and atheists and theists go back and forth with the arguments and counter arguments.

Here is (probably) it's most ardent defender, explaining the basics of the argument...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeKavDdRVIg




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3w-o1X4tLI

[BetaAsPhuck]

I don't think you see how naive such arguments regarding "first cause" are. Our entire notion of causality is directly tied to a specific dimension of our existence, time.

It is all speculation, but we do know that time breaks down, and since classical causality is rooted in a conventional understanding of time, it probably doesn't apply here.

Broceps has already said that.

I have already said that.

Also, I have repeatedly said that I don't use the argument, but I do think it is the strongest argument of the philosophical arguments. (I don't use any of them, just to repeat.)

I recommend watching the video I posted above, if you want to hear the argument fleshed out from a respected philosopher.

[miscinbro]

His argument is the Kalam cosmological argument.



No, it's not convenient.

The argument is literally only addressing the beginning of the universe, you're discussing something different. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an attempt to discern anything other than the beginning of the universe.



I would advise reading or listening about it.

It's been around for a while, and atheists and theists go back and forth with the arguments and counter arguments.

Here is (probably) it's most ardent defender, explaining the basics of the argument...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeKavDdRVIg

I tried to finish it, but when he started talking about “coins” and “infinity” I couldn’t handle any more. It doesn’t help that the argument he’s advancing was invented by a Muslim - so he’s clearly not able to argue for any particular faith here.

[numberguy12]

Philosophical arguments aren't akin to math, as I'm sure you know. They can't be verified objectively, in the same way.

There is (as you probably known) numerous counter arguments, on both sides, given when the Kalam Cosmological argument is presented and disputed. Again, philosophical arguments aren't not objectively verifiable in the same way that math arguments are.

I don't use the argument, however like I said I think it's the strongest philosophical argument for God's existence that I've come across.

And my response to this is......it's not much different than a meaningless statement then. If you have a "non-verifiable" argument, or proof, or whatever you want to call it, then what the heck is the arguer even trying to say.

"I have shown that God exists....but I really havent shown that God exists in that anything I'm saying is verifiable.....I'm just ehhh...talking I guess."

"Therefore God exists".

lol.

[BetaAsPhuck]

Below: A visual representation of me trying to understand posts in this thread

I'm not talking about the science introduced on this page, but the Kalam Cosmological argument isn't hard to understand, you're probably just unfamiliar with the terms.

[wincel]

Gonna play devil's advocate with you here since it might be more interesting than discussing the kalam cosmological argument.


Don't fully agree with this. The fact that we usa a particular model to make it easier for us to study something doesn't mean that we actually live in that model. Keep in mind that in that very model time is measured in meters for convenience sake, and no one would argue that time is actually a distance that you could measure with a yardstick.

And even within that model, there's definitely something special about the time dimension. I could bring up something as simple as the fact that we can remember stuff from the past, but not stuff from the future. And all observed matter only seems to travel in one direction of that dimension (tachyons haven't been detected yet, and even though you probably drew a Feynman diagram at some point in school where you described the interaction of a particle and an anti-particle as a single particle jumping from traveling forward in time to traveling backwards in time, most physicists believe that's just a very convenient way of modeling the event, not convinced that anti-particles are actually particles traveling backwards in time).


How so? Keep in mind that the relativity of simultaneity only applies to spacelike events (events where it's impossible for a ray of light to travel between one event and the other before it occurs). Timelike and lightlike events will always occur in the same exact order no matter what frame of reference you choose to study them (ie: if you shoot a watermelon with a gun and it explodes, there's no frame of reference where the watermelon exploded before you shot it). I'd argue that in a tiny space like what'd you'd deal with in a singularity, there would be an over-abundance of timelike and lightlike events.

You may argue that it's just wishful thinking to assume that the stuff we've figured out in our current Universe might be useful to figure out what happened before it came to be, and you'd be 100% right. It's probably a lost cause, but I'd say it's the equivalent of losing your contact lens on your walk home from a late night party, and then going back and looking for it just in the patches of the road where there are street lights. Sure, it's more likely that you dropped it somewhere were there's no light, but since it's impossible to find it there, might as well try the illuminated spots just in case.

It means it's the best description we have. Might as well use it over some ancient/obsolete/wrong ideas. Time is literally a dimension as far as modern theories are concerned. There is a detailed argument about why you can't remember the future. You may find this paper by Hartle interesting, kind of melding physics and philosophy in this area.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0403001.pdf

You are correct about timelike separation of events producing a causal structure. However, to define an absolute arrow of time objectively for the entire universe (aka all observers) is clearly impossible by relativity of simultaneity. Also, keep in mind that at the singularity and also in the very early stages of the universe, many of the basic assumptions we make about spacetime itself break down.

I just think our language and notions of causality are adding poisoned assumptions about the nature of the early universe and the beginning of time itself. There may have been a logical cause to the existence of the universe and not a temporal one, but this is certainly not a "creation" in the ordinary sense one would think of.

[wincel]

Broceps has already said that.

I have already said that.

Also, I have repeatedly said that I don't use the argument, but I do think it is the strongest argument of the philosophical arguments. (I don't use any of them, just to repeat.)

I recommend watching the video I posted above, if you want to hear the argument fleshed out from a respected philosopher.

fair enough then

as long as you see that the kalam cosmological argument probably isn't applicable to our universe

Regarding the boy, he is a very bright guy. I think in the future when he learns more, he will have a much more polished view.

[BrocepCurls]

Notice this is different than the argument in the post I quoted above. The one I quoted was attempting to make a point solely using logic and metaphysics. Now there is an attempt to bring scientific theories in, such as big bang cosmology. Surely "existence", however that term is defined, need not start with a big bang. Time itself can be tricky as wincel was making a point about of above, but besides that, heck you could have infinite cyclical universes prior to the big bang for all we know. The answer is we just dont know. Thus to say the universe has to have had a beginning is unjustified, even within big bang cosmology, and as talked about above, if just one assumption is faulty or unwarranted, the entire argument collapses.

The premise of the argument is derived from scientific theory - ie. that the universe had a beginning. As I said, this is an oversimplified misunderstanding of exactly what big bang cosmology tells us, which is why the premise is false.

The conclusion of the argument is then arrived at by logic and metaphysics. Ie. if the universe did have a beginning in time rather than simply existing necessarily, then it must be contingent. If it is contingent, then it must have a cause, because all contingent things we observe have causes that bring them into existence.

The Kalam Cosmological argument in its simplest form is basically this:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2. The Universe began to exist
C. Therefore the universe has a cause

If P1. and P2. were unquestionably true, then the KCA would be a perfectly valid logical argument. The problem with it is that there's no reason to think that either P1 or P2 are true, which is where the theists get it wrong.

[BetaAsPhuck]

And my response to this is......it's not much different than a meaningless statement then. If you have a "non-verifiable" argument, or proof, or whatever you want to call it, then what the heck is the arguer even trying to say.

"I have shown that God exists....but I really havent shown that God exists in that anything I'm saying is verifiable.....I'm just ehhh...talking I guess."

"Therefore God exists".

lol.

You've misunderstood what I've said.

I wrote that it's not objectively verifiable in the same way that Math is. Regardless of one's values or hidden presuppositions, math can be proven or disproven definitively.

Philosophical arguments do not work in the same way. A person's values, hidden presuppositions, and education level can influence how convincing an argument is.

2 people can look at an argument, and come to different conclusions about it's validity (eg. the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the is-ought problem, etc).

That's my point.

[numberguy12]

The premise of the argument is derived from scientific theory - ie. that the universe had a beginning. As I said, this is an oversimplified misunderstanding of exactly what big bang cosmology tells us, which is why the premise is false.

The conclusion of the argument is then arrived at by logic and metaphysics. Ie. if the universe did have a beginning in time rather than simply existing necessarily, then it must be contingent. If it is contingent, then it must have a cause, because all contingent things we observe have causes that bring them into existence.

The Kalam Cosmological argument in its simplest form is basically this:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2. The Universe began to exist
C. Therefore the universe has a cause

If P1. and P2. were unquestionably true, then the KCA would be a perfectly valid logical argument. The problem with it is that there's no reason to think that either P1 or P2 are true, which is where the theists go wrong.

The response to this is if we are talking about an argument, good or bad, with bad premises, then who really cares about anything, especially the conclusion. Not worth devoting much time to this at all.

[numberguy12]

You've misunderstood what I've said.

I wrote that it's not objectively verifiable in the same way that Math is. Regardless of one's values or hidden presuppositions, math can be proven or disproven definitively.

Philosophical arguments do not work in the same way. A person's values, hidden presuppositions, and education level can influence how convincing an argument is.

2 people can look at an argument, and come to different conclusions about it's validity (eg. the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the is-ought problem, etc).

That's my point.

Not misunderstanding you at all....simply noting that I dont give credence to supposed arguments that cant be verified in any manner and that have obvious flaws. You can keep distinguishing mathematical proofs from philosophical arguments all you want, but the bottom line I'm getting at is truth. We turn to mathematics for truth, because it produce conclusions that are irrefutable. Vague, imprecise philosophical arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument are not irrefutable, and hence it is meaningless for someone "show God exists" using them. I stand by the point I made in the previous post.

[wincel]

His argument is the Kalam cosmological argument.



No, it's not convenient.

The argument is literally only addressing the beginning of the universe, you're discussing something different. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not an attempt to discern anything other than the beginning of the universe.



I would advise reading or listening about it.

It's been around for a while, and atheists and theists go back and forth with the arguments and counter arguments.

Here is (probably) it's most ardent defender, explaining the basics of the argument...

I watched the first 2:45 of that video you linked, and got pissed off. One qualm I have with Craig's explanation of KCA is the idea that an infinite thing cannot exist. Why? Why can't an infinity really exist? Also, regarding his coin argument, the mathematics of infinities have been known for about a century now. We have a careful definition of cardinal and ordinal numbers. There is no contradiction that removing the even numbered coins leaves an infinite number of odd coins. In fact, the fact that y=2n is a one to one and onto function from natural numbers to natural numbers illustrates very clearly that there are exactly the same cardinal number of even numbers as odds as total natural numbers. This is only contradictory if you assume that infinite cardinal numbers behave like ordinary finite numbers. They do not. Cantor showed us this a long time ago. Also, set subtraction is a perfectly well defined concept. The idea that I can exclude a certain number of elements from a set is fine. If I exclude all natural numbers except {1,2,3}, I am left with those 3. He uses phrases like "infinity minus infinity" deceptively to be ambiguous and then argues this is contradictory. Of course it is! He is deceptively abusing the concept of infinity. Mathematicians know this language is vague. We need to be specific about what is being removed. Once we are, there is no confusion whatsoever, and it behaves exactly as one would expect.

Maybe I will watch the rest later, but it is painfully obvious that the formulators of the argument did not understand cardinal numbers. (And of course they didn't because nobody really did until Cantor came along.)

Watching the rest of what the guy says, and editing as I go. He says Hilbert said some chit about infinity not being real. Ok. Hilbert could be wrong about some things too you know? Then he says the past is real. Maybe. Maybe not. We need to be very careful about what we mean by "real" here, and what we mean by past. After all, "the past" is really "the past for a given observer" and of course, the only signature of reality that observer has is in the interactions and measurements that reach it. Then he says the number of past events must be finite because they are "real". Uhh nope. Nowhere in his entire argument did he justify that. The argument is that "Hilbert said infinity isn't a physical reality. The past is real. Therefore the past must be finite." That's fuking retarded, and there is so much wrong with that, I won't even bother writing it here. I'll remind you that the finite numbers are also ideas. Everything we fathom is an idea. You can't show me 2 anything. Maybe you can say you are 1 observer that exists. Fine. But what about 2? Can you show me 2 anything? Oh you have 2 hands? What's a hand? Can you define your hand accurately with sharp boundaries to carefully create 2 structures? It's just an idea. Really there is only your own existence, the external universe, and arbitrary partitions of it defined by you. Numbers are just ideas bro. See? This argument doesn't really work too well. Just because something is an idea doesn't mean it doesn't have a physical realization in some form. Take an inch of space. Based on our current models, there are an infinite number of points in there. There's an infinity right there.

I just can't...maybe later I will watch the rest jfc.

[miscinbro]

The premise of the argument is derived from scientific theory - ie. that the universe had a beginning. As I said, this is an oversimplified misunderstanding of exactly what big bang cosmology tells us, which is why the premise is false.

The conclusion of the argument is then arrived at by logic and metaphysics. Ie. if the universe did have a beginning in time rather than simply existing necessarily, then it must be contingent. If it is contingent, then it must have a cause, because all contingent things we observe have causes that bring them into existence.

The Kalam Cosmological argument in its simplest form is basically this:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
P2. The Universe began to exist
C. Therefore the universe has a cause

If P1. and P2. were unquestionably true, then the KCA would be a perfectly valid logical argument. The problem with it is that there's no reason to think that either P1 or P2 are true, which is where the theists get it wrong.

The problem is far deeper than that. The KCA argument goes to great lengths to setup an argument were things need a cause and a start, but then somehow, punts the cause and start to some magical being that has always had a cause and start that setup that cause and start.

[BetaAsPhuck]

Not misunderstanding you at all....simply noting that I dont give credence to supposed arguments that cant be verified in any manner and that have obvious flaws.

That's pretty much the entirety of philosophy.

You'll never find a philosophical position that isn't disputed.

If you throw out all philosophical arguments because they can or have been disputed, then you are left with nothing.

You can keep distinguishing mathematical proofs from philosophical arguments all you want, but the bottom line I'm getting at is truth. We turn to mathematics for truth, because it produce conclusions that are irrefutable. Vague, imprecise philosophical arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument are not irrefutable, and hence it is meaningless for someone "show God exists" using them. I stand by the point I made in the previous post.

Some people offer the Kalam Cosmological argument as a 'proof' on it's own.

Some people offer it as 'evidence', that they combine with other arguments.

[numberguy12]

I tried to finish it, but when he started talking about “coins” and “infinity” I couldn’t handle any more. It doesn’t help that the argument he’s advancing was invented by a Muslim - so he’s clearly not able to argue for any particular faith here.

I know, right. And as to the coin thing and the ∞-∞ thing.....oh my, I mean I get that hes not a mathematician, but geez. First problem here: talking about ∞-∞. Mathematicians dont go on talking about expressions like ∞-∞, they are meaningless. Granted, infinity has been very well described and laid out in modern Cantorian set theory, but there appears to be little understanding of these late-19th and early 20th century developments based on his lecture. The other problem here is comparing something as abstract as mathematics to the physical world at all. These are very different things. Oh and here's a sequence from mathematics that has an upper bound but no lower bound, and goes infinitely into the past:

{.....,-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0}. The set of non-positive whole numbers. Whelp, so much for the cant go infinitely into past thing. We are at 0

Here's another one: (0,1]. The set of all real numbers x, 0<x<=1. No lower bound. We are at 1, the upper bound.

[BetaAsPhuck]

I watched the first 2:45 of that video you linked, and got pissed off. One qualm I have with Craig's explanation of KCA is the idea that an infinite thing cannot exist. Why? Why can't an infinity really exist? Also, regarding his coin argument, the mathematics of infinities have been known for about a century now. We have a careful definition of cardinal and ordinal numbers. There is no contradiction that removing the even numbered coins leaves an infinite number of odd coins. In fact, the fact that y=2n is a one to one and onto function from natural numbers to natural numbers illustrates very clearly that there are exactly the same cardinal number of even numbers as odds as total natural numbers. This is only contradictory if you assume that infinite cardinal numbers behave like ordinary finite numbers. They do not. Cantor showed us this a long time ago. Also, set subtraction is a perfectly well defined concept. The idea that I can exclude a certain number of elements from a set is fine. If I exclude all natural numbers except {1,2,3}, I am left with those 3. He uses phrases like "infinity minus infinity" deceptively to be ambiguous and then argues this is contradictory. Of course it is! He is deceptively abusing the concept of infinity. Mathematicians know this language is vague. We need to be specific about what is being removed. Once we are, there is no confusion whatsoever, and it behaves exactly as one would expect.

Maybe I will watch the rest later, but it is painfully obvious that the formulators of the argument did not understand cardinal numbers. (And of course they didn't because nobody really did until Cantor came along.)

Didn't understand what you wrote, but it sounds interesting (srs).

[BrocepCurls]

The problem is far deeper than that. The KCA argument goes to great lengths to setup an argument were things need a cause and a start, but then somehow, punts the cause and start to some magical being that has always had a cause and start that setup that cause and start.

The KCA states that everything that begins to exist has to have a cause. Not that everything has to have a cause. Since proponents of the KCA believe that the universe definitively had a beginning, they argue that it must have a cause that brought it into existence.

It's perfectly consistent with the KCA that something which did not begin to exist, ie. something that existed necessarily, would not need a cause.

[BetaAsPhuck]

The KCA states that anything that begins to exist has to have a cause. Not that anything has to have a cause. Since proponents of the KCA believe that the universe definitively had a beginning, they argue that it must have a cause that brought it into existence.

It's perfectly consistent with the KCA that something which did not begin to exist, ie. something that existed necessarily, would not need a cause.

Respect Broceps.

It's rare that a person can argue both sides of an argument well. It's pretty clear that you seem to know the argument inside out.

Do you study philosophy in general, or have you been part of the 'new atheism' crowd?

[miscinbro]

The KCA states that everything that begins to exist has to have a cause. Not that everything has to have a cause. Since proponents of the KCA believe that the universe definitively had a beginning, they argue that it must have a cause that brought it into existence.

It's perfectly consistent with the KCA that something which did not begin to exist, ie. something that existed necessarily, would not need a cause.

Sorry, no. It’s total potatoe logic to argue that things need a beginning and cause in an attempt to argue that something didn’t need a beginning and cause to start it all off.

[numberguy12]

That's pretty much the entirety of philosophy.

You'll never find a philosophical position that isn't disputed.

If you throw out all philosophical arguments because they can or have been disputed, then you are left with nothing.



Some people offer the Kalam Cosmological argument as a 'proof' on it's own.

Some people offer it as 'evidence', that they combine with other arguments.

Actually a lot of philosophy does turn out to be....meaningless statements that cant be 1)verified scientifically (empirically) or 2)mathematically (logically). Using the word "evidence" in regards to something like a cosmological argument also doesnt make sense....this is not some observed physical evidence like we find in science. It is a flawed argument from philosophy/metaphysics is all. If someone wants to claim they "proved God exists", then this surely means "God exists" follows 100% from their argument....I'm not sure what else it could possibly mean. As we established these proofs certainly arent irrefutable like you find in math, so the entire thing collapses and we are left with virtually a worthless statement. As a side note, notice Craig is not saying "as a conclusion to the KCA, we say that God probably exists". He is saying God exists. Thus the 100% thing. (of course even if his conclusion was instead probably exists, it would be just as fallacious of an argument).

In terms of God existence proofs in general, I like to contrast the two examples.

-Philosophy 101 class: "Ok students, today we are going to go over the various proofs for the existence of God, then we are going to debate whether God exists or not, and discuss the different stance on it"

-Mathematics 101 class: "Ok students, today we are going to go over the proof of the Pythagorean theorem, that a^2+b^2 = c^2 for right triangles. Then we are going to debate whether a^2+b^2=c^2".

Hmm which one do you think would never happen. It's almost as if the various proofs of God, including the Kalam cosmological argument, arent convincing.....

[wincel]

Didn't understand what you wrote, but it sounds interesting (srs).

I'll show you what I mean. Infinity is not a number. Rather, infinite is an attribute we assign to sets. When we speak of limits tending "to infinity" for real numbers, we really mean things that can get arbitrarily large. For example, as you approach 0 from the right, 1/x becomes arbitrarily positively large. You can pick any number M, and find an x so that 1/x > M. But when we talk of infinite sets, we mean a very different (though technically related) notion. I'll give you an example. We assume there is an infinite set as a basic axiom of math. Usually, we can take this set to be the natural numbers {1,2,3,...}. (This is a fairly innocent assumption, but yes, it is an assumption. It actually has to be when you scrutinize it.) If such a set exists, we can also end up showing along with a few other basic axioms of math that allow us to unambiguously decide whether an element is or is not in a set, that no set can be put in a one to one correspondence with the set of all of its subsets. Example for finite case: The set {0,1,2} cannot be put into one to one onto correspondence with the set {empty,{0},{1},{2},{0,1},{0,2},{1,2},{0,1,2}} Notice that the second set has 2^3 elements while the first set has 3 elements. We call the set of all subsets of a set the powerset of that set. So, you can see that for finite numbers, a set of n elements has 2^n elements in its power set. And we know n < 2^n. So there can be no one to one mapping from a finite set onto its powerset. Similarly, it turns out to hold for any set. Not just finite sets.

Let f be a function mapping a set S to its power set P(S). Suppose f is an onto function. Then, let Q be a subset of S defined as all elements x in S such that x is not an element of f(x), the subset of S that x maps to. Ok, but since f is onto, there is an element, y, such that f(y)=Q. But wait, if y is in Q, y is not in Q, and if y is not in Q, y is in Q! Contradictions either way!!! This implies that no such onto function can exist. This means that there is no function mapping a set onto its powerset. That means there is no bijection between a set and its powerset. This means the "number" of elements in infinite sets is somehow different than the "number" of elements in the powerset of those infinite sets! But this means there are hierarchies of infinity!

It gets even weirder when we take into account a notion of ordering, and look at the way infinite sets are ordered in a sense. We can look at counting in a cardinal (one, two, three) or ordinal way (first,second, third). These concepts turn out to diverge in the infinite case.

My point is that infinity is a well understood concept now, and it is something worth looking into if you are curious about these things. The modern formulation of set theory resolved many troubling issues we had with infinities.

This is not to mock that guy. If he isn't a mathematician, he wouldn't be expected to understand these ideas. Some of the smartest humans who ever lived grappled with the notions of infinity long ago. Thankfully, we don't have to. We can look at their work and understand it now. You really can comprehend infinities. Of course, you can't actually think of an infinite number of objects in detail. It isn't something as natural to you as finite quantities of things. But, then again, can you really fathom 2492492 things? Maybe some savants out there have an innate sense of numbers that big. But, eventually, there is some number so big that nobody has any sense of it. But we can still talk about it. And that was just a finite number. So, we already can see that we don't need that specific quantitative sense of something to comprehend it well enough to describe. Infinite sets are similar.

[BrocepCurls]

Respect Broceps.

It's rare that a person can argue both sides of an argument well. It's pretty clear that you seem to know the argument inside out.

Do you study philosophy in general, or have you been part of the 'new atheism' crowd?

Never formally no, just as a pastime. As for new atheism, never really identified with the movement much - I think most of them are still pretty relevant when discussing the negative social consequences of religion, the intolerance and conflict it can produce, etc.

But when it comes to discussing philosophy of religion, they are for the most part amateurs. Dawkins and Hitchens are probably the worst in that regard, as neither put forward any robust logical arguments for their position or to counter the theist positions (Dawkins for example just spends most of his time talking about evolution which is not even incompatible with theist philosophy, and Hitches mostly goes on animated rants about "celestial North Korea" and tirades against religious figures).

Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss both do a little better as they actually try and put forward a naturalistic framework for existence/morality, but still come up short IMO. The best takedown of religion and successful defense of naturalism from someone who you might call a new atheist came from Sean Carroll when he debated WLC. I think that was the first time a scientist taking on WLC clearly won the debate and refuted basically all of his usual talking points. A must watch.

Atheism needs more people like that, who both understand the ins and outs of modern science and cosmology, and also have an good grasp of philosophy and logic.