11 yr old Genius Attempts to Prove the Existence of God

[BrocepCurls]

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.

Not really. The argument says that anything that HAS a beginning must have a cause that caused it to begin to exist (ie. it could have either existed or not existed, but something brought it into existence). If something did not have a beginning, it would not need a cause, under the same logic.

[adimare]

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.

You're basically saying:
My friend told me he ate some ice cream, he also told me that it wasn't vanilla, and since the only two choices of ice cream are vanilla and chocolate, we can deduce he ate chocolate ice cream. Then I bring up the fact that in any ice cream store there are plenty of flavors that aren't vanilla or chocolate, and you're just responding "well, I'm not talking about those stores, this argument is only about the ice cream my friend ate, why are you even bringing up other stores you dummy?". You need to convince me that your dichotomy makes sense, what reason do I have to believe that it has to apply for one process if it doesn't apply for a large number of other processes?

So once again, please answer this question:

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?

[numberguy12]

Some people think it's a great talent to argue both sides of an argument.

Others look at people arguing both sides of an argument and realize "hey...it's a bad argument to start with if both sides can be argued". If one is in search of actual truth, he should look towards good arguments that produce truth. Without truth, I'm not sure what, if any, meaning a statement can have.

[miscinbro]

Not really. The argument says that anything that HAS a beginning must have a cause that caused it to begin to exist (ie. it could have either existed or not existed, but something brought it into existence). If something did not have a beginning, it would not need a cause, under the same logic.

Ok ... but under that same “logic” the universe might not have a “beginning.”

[sy2502]

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.

The Kalam argument doesn't stand even by the rules of logic.It commits the logical fallacy of 'Sweeping Generalisation".

If one takes a general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific features of the case, the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping generalisation fallacy.

Kalam takes a rule (everything has a first cause) and tries to apply it to a very special case, namely the beginning of the universe. It doesn't give a logical argument for why a general rule (general in the sense of our everyday experience) should apply to such an extraordinary, exceptional, unrepeated and unrepeatable (as far as we know) event. Hence it is invalid.

[wincel]

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.

The entire debate is quite silly. There are good empirical reasons why specific religions are false in the empirical sense. Many miraculous events violate basic laws of physics, and are not reproducible. Many claims about the nature of the universe made in religions are known to be false (in the empirical sense so extremely unlikely). But the strongest thing you can really use to argue against the veracity of specific religions is to simply ask what they mean by "God". Most people cannot really define God in a meaningful way. So, it really is an argument over an idea that nobody has any idea what they are talking about. People can say "the creator" or "the almighty". There is so much assumed there that cannot be proved logically or demonstrated experimentally. If we claim the existence of some entity, usually there are more defining characteristics of that entity that can be measured and observed to corroborate its existence. There are no such characteristics for God. People say things like "God is everywhere and nowhere" or to "pray and you will see". Well I prayed and I didn't see, and the former sounded like a contradiction to me. How can anyone reconcile what seems to be a 4d existence with God meddling and responding along some timeline and performing miracles? Doesn't that mean there is some sort of absolute timeline along which the universe evolves? Isn't that in direct contradiction to empirically observed tendencies to follow our physics models, which abandoned absolute time? So, we at least have some reason to dispute the specific idea that God has meddled and performed miracles. Also, how can you distinguish God from the universe itself? Basically, nobody knows what the hell they are talking about. Maybe there was a logical cause to the universe. Or maybe there was even some sort of conscious entity that deliberately temporally caused it that exists in its own realm following whatever laws of physics it follows, and maybe that entity even experiences a kind of "supertime" dimension along which such causes would occur external to time? Or maybe there is no cause at all. Maybe the universe just is. Who the fuk knows? Nobody that's who. Literally nobody knows. Nobody knows what they even mean when they say "God". Usually, they are actually eventually trying to argue for a specific set of customs, rules, and traditions of a particular culture being the "right way" to live. It's not an exploration of "God" at all. They aren't searching for truth. They are trying to bully you into living the way they dictate.

Could there be an entity out there responsible for all this? Of course. What is it like? Nobody knows. What realm does it exist in? Nobody knows. Did it have a reason to create all this, and if so, what was it? Nobody knows.

I can tell you this...if there is a God, it/they seems to have a fondness for mathematics.

[BrocepCurls]

Ok ... but under that same “logic” the universe might not have a “beginning.”

That's why I said the KCA comes apart because its premises are unsubstantiated when you look into it deeply. On the surface, yes it seems like the universe has a beginning - modern cosmology and our discovery of the universe's expansion suggest a finite point in the past where everything began, but this is a purely classical description of the universe. The truth is we simply don't know if the universe genuinely truly had a beginning or not.

[jonmcd46]

Honestly surprised about how many miscers so far seemingly have a good understand of gen rel. And to those that are saying its basic high school physics fuk off, Newtonian physics was high school, gen rel was 400/500 level for me as a math major.
Don't agree with his argument, but the way his brain works is incredible for his age, he can logically support his claims.
Also I don't think we will ever be able to prove if their is a creator/God or not, I assume if a God does exist than he is a lot smarter than us and would figure out a way to keep us all confused.

You mean 11 year old retard?

bro at least he doesn't btch on a bb.com forum about his dink size. How much do you know about general relativity? Or do they not teach you that as a 23 year old accounting major?

[wincel]

Honestly surprised about how many miscers so far seemingly have a good understand of gen rel. And to those that are saying its basic high school physics fuk off, Newtonian physics was high school, gen rel was 400/500 level for me as a math major.
Don't agree with his argument, but the way his brain works is incredible for his age, he can logically support his claims.
Also I don't think we will ever be able to prove if their is a creator/God or not, I assume if a God does exist than he is a lot smarter than us and would figure out a way to keep us all confused.

bro at least he doesn't btch on a bb.com forum about his dink size. How much do you know about general relativity? Or do they not teach you that as a 23 year old accounting major?

Most of the arguments are special relativity, which is early college or hs level. I doubt many miscers understand differential geometry and general relativity, but yea, there are a few that probably do. Also, the kid almost certainly knows nothing about GR. He studies at a community college, and they don't teach the mathematics of GR there. He is curious and has the understanding of a curious lay person. This is fine. Everyone was like him once, and many people have their own pet ideas about the universe when they are young. I used to think time was an illusion before I learned more physics lol. There are a lot of ideas people have when they are young that are wrong, and that's totally okay. It is important that he remains humble and doesn't presume to know everything. He has a long road ahead to learn more. When he completes his PhD in physics, he will have a much better view of what is known, and he may take a less arrogant stance. There is a reason most physicists just decline to discuss God entirely. Some believe, and some do not, but they have the good sense to realize that matters of faith are not easily demonstrated via science.

[BrocepCurls]

The entire debate is quite silly. There are good empirical reasons why specific religions are false in the empirical sense. Many miraculous events violate basic laws of physics, and are not reproducible. Many claims about the nature of the universe made in religions are known to be false (in the empirical sense so extremely unlikely). But the strongest thing you can really use to argue against the veracity of specific religions is to simply ask what they mean by "God". Most people cannot really define God in a meaningful way. So, it really is an argument over an idea that nobody has any idea what they are talking about. People can say "the creator" or "the almighty". There is so much assumed there that cannot be proved logically or demonstrated experimentally. If we claim the existence of some entity, usually there are more defining characteristics of that entity that can be measured and observed to corroborate its existence. There are no such characteristics for God. People say things like "God is everywhere and nowhere" or to "pray and you will see". Well I prayed and I didn't see, and the former sounded like a contradiction to me. How can anyone reconcile what seems to be a 4d existence with God meddling and responding along some timeline and performing miracles? Doesn't that mean there is some sort of absolute timeline along which the universe evolves? Isn't that in direct contradiction to empirically observed tendencies to follow our physics models, which abandoned absolute time? So, we at least have some reason to dispute the specific idea that God has meddled and performed miracles. Also, how can you distinguish God from the universe itself? Basically, nobody knows what the hell they are talking about. Maybe there was a logical cause to the universe. Or maybe there was even some sort of conscious entity that deliberately temporally caused it that exists in its own realm following whatever laws of physics it follows, and maybe that entity even experiences a kind of "supertime" dimension along which such causes would occur external to time? Or maybe there is no cause at all. Maybe the universe just is. Who the fuk knows? Nobody that's who. Literally nobody knows. Nobody knows what they even mean when they say "God". Usually, they are actually eventually trying to argue for a specific set of customs, rules, and traditions of a particular culture being the "right way" to live. It's not an exploration of "God" at all. They aren't searching for truth. They are trying to bully you into living the way they dictate.

Could there be an entity out there responsible for all this? Of course. What is it like? Nobody knows. What realm does it exist in? Nobody knows. Did it have a reason to create all this, and if so, what was it? Nobody knows.

I can tell you this...if there is a God, it/they seems to have a fondness for mathematics.

I enjoy your posts wincel but please use paragraphs

I agree that the case for theism is especially poor. I think, whilst the logical arguments for a proximate cause (cosmological, teleological, ontological) are all heavily flawed, I don't think it's that unreasonable to find them convincing and arrive at some kind of deistic belief.

Theism on the other hand - the idea that your specific sect of your specific religion among all of the thousands of different sects of different religions around the world is the correct representation of the truth, and that this creator is personally involved in your life and punishes/rewards you and all the other horse**** that comes along with it, despite zero logical or empirical evidence existing to validate your claims and plenty of evidence to the contrary, that will always be wholly irrational IMO.

[wincel]

I enjoy your posts wincel but please use paragraphs

I agree that the case for theism is especially poor. I think, whilst the logical arguments for a proximate cause (cosmological, teleological, ontological) are all heavily flawed, I don't think it's that unreasonable to find them convincing and arrive at some kind of deistic belief.

Theism on the other hand - the idea that your specific sect of your specific religion among all of the thousands of different sects of different religions around the world is the correct representation of the truth, and that this creator is personally involved in your life and punishes/rewards you and all the other horse**** that comes along with it, despite zero logical or empirical evidence existing to validate your claims and plenty of evidence to the contrary, that will always be wholly irrational IMO,

It is pretty unreasonable to draw conclusions about a thing you don't even know the definition of though...
Like imagine I make some claim about electrons, but you have no idea what an electron is. And we sit and argue about it. Fortunately, we have some picture of what it is. We can talk about these elementary charged particles that are part of atoms, etc (If we want to be technical about some mathematical definition within the model, they are irreducible representations of a particular group). We know their role in the behavior of matter, electricity, etc. After all the description, we can have some consensus about what it is we are talking about. We never really perfectly define any empirically experienced object, but it's sufficient for having a dialogue. There are so many different notions of God, on the other hand, that it is a poorly defined and ambiguous concept. Even if you restrict it to a single sect of a single religion, there is still too much ambiguity to meaningfully talk about it. Talking about God isn't the same as talking about George Washington, Chad, or Timothy. We need more descriptors to make any sense of it.

[miscinbro]

That's why I said the KCA comes apart because its premises are unsubstantiated when you look into it deeply. On the surface, yes it seems like the universe has a beginning - modern cosmology and our discovery of the universe's expansion suggest a finite point in the past where everything began, but this is a purely classical description of the universe. The truth is we simply don't know if the universe genuinely truly had a beginning or not.

That sounds a lot like a “God of the gaps” argument to me.

[BrocepCurls]

It is pretty unreasonable to draw conclusions about a thing you don't even know the definition of though...
Like imagine I make some claim about electrons, but you have no idea what an electron is. And we sit and argue about it. Fortunately, we have some picture of what it is. We can talk about these elementary charged particles that are part of atoms, etc. We know their role in the behavior of matter, electricity, etc. After all the description, we can have some consensus about what it is we are talking about. We never really perfectly define any empirically experienced object, but it's sufficient for having a dialogue. There are so many different notions of God, on the other hand, that it is a poorly defined and ambiguous concept. Even if you restrict it to a single sect of a single religion, there is still too much ambiguity to meaningfully talk about it. Talking about God isn't the same as talking about George Washington, Chad, or Timothy. We need more descriptors to make any sense of it.

When you go into nonsense theism god-answers-my-prayers stuff then yah. But I guess if we're just talking about the proximate cause, you can make a case for it using pure logic without having to elucidate any of God's personable characteristics. Kind of like how physicists predicted the Higgs Boson using a purely mathematical framework and then only decades later was it actually observed in lab conditions.

[jonmcd46]

Most of the arguments are special relativity, which is early college or hs level. I doubt many miscers understand differential geometry and general relativity, but yea, there are a few that probably do. Also, the kid almost certainly knows nothing about GR. He studies at a community college, and they don't teach the mathematics of GR there. He is curious and has the understanding of a curious lay person. This is fine. Everyone was like him once, and many people have their own pet ideas about the universe when they are young. I used to think time was an illusion before I learned more physics lol. There are a lot of ideas people have when they are young that are wrong, and that's totally okay. It is important that he remains humble and doesn't presume to know everything. He has a long road ahead to learn more. When he completes his PhD in physics, he will have a much better view of what is known, and he may take a less arrogant stance. There is a reason most physicists just decline to discuss God entirely. Some believe, and some do not, but they have the good sense to realize that matters of faith are not easily demonstrated via science.

You have a point, didn't think about the fact he studies at a CC, but what he was saying gave me the feeling he knew a bit more than what CC/HS teaches, just because when I was in CC/HS I'd have no fukkin clue about half of what he was saying. He may not understand it, but he at least is aware of it, if that makes sense.
I don't get the sense that he is arrogant, I think the video was edited, and made to make a point (omg 11 year old genius proved God is real, you're an idiot if you don't agree). He will learn more but I don't think his opinion on a God will change as he grows up like most people's opinion do. Most people lose faith because something chitty happens or church is boring, if he loses faith it will be because he understands a new theory. Lol I'm just saying his maturing and most people's maturing are two completely different things.

[wincel]

When you go into nonsense theism god-answers-my-prayers stuff then yah. But I guess if we're just talking about the proximate cause, you can make a case for it using pure logic without having to elucidate any of God's personable characteristics. Kind of like how physicists predicted the Higgs Boson using a purely mathematical framework and then only decades later was it actually observed in lab conditions.

The difference is that they could very clearly describe what the higgs boson was. They had all the attributes specified to look for it. What are the attributes of God so that we can look for it? Also, there is something necessarily wrong with attempting to use logical reasoning to dictate empirical observations. We all do it all the time, but when we are concerned with Truth with a capital T aka questions about how things "really are", we know science has no answers at all. Science is just about how things SEEM to be based on what we have seen. Given that claims about God are empirical claims, it should make you skeptical of anyone that claims they can logically prove the existence of God. After all, the only physical existence you can actually establish is your own. For everything else, there is certainly some doubt.

[BrocepCurls]

The difference is that they could very clearly describe what the higgs boson was. They had all the attributes specified to look for it. What are the attributes of God so that we can look for it? Also, there is something necessarily wrong with attempting to use logical reasoning to dictate empirical observations. We all do it all the time, but when we are concerned with Truth with a capital T aka questions about how things "really are", we know science has no answers at all. Science is just about how things SEEM to be based on what we have seen. Given that claims about God are empirical claims, it should make you skeptical of anyone that claims they can logically prove the existence of God. After all, the only physical existence you can actually establish is your own. For everything else, there is certainly some doubt.

But God would have to exist outside of spacetime, so we can never empirically observe God in the same way we can anything else. Meaning the only way you can make conclusions about his existence is via logical arguments (though those logical arguments may be informed by observations about our universe).

I am more specifically talking about deism and the concept of a proximate cause itself here, not the theistic God that comes down and sets bushes on fire etc. Obviously that would require some direct empirical evidence

[wincel]

But God would have to exist outside of spacetime, so we can never empirically observe God in the same way we can anything else. Meaning the only way you can make conclusions about his existence is via logical arguments (though those logical arguments may be informed by observations about our universe).

I am more specifically talking about deism and the concept of a proximate cause itself here, not the theistic God that comes down and sets bushes on fire etc. Obviously that would require some direct empirical evidence

If God exists outside of spacetime and has no measurable attributes of its actions within spacetime, then there is no way to even talk about anything it does. God's existence is not logically determined. God's existence is an empirical claim. People really believe it exists and that it has some influence in our universe. If you take God to be some entity that "created" the universe and has no influence here, then 1) how do we know about it? (keeping in mind what I said about the physical assumptions being made about the early universe when one argues about creation...these are actually empirical in nature even if we don't have a complete theory to explain this yet) and 2) what difference does it make then?

Thus, there ought to be some characteristics we can look for. Actually, we all know logical conclusions rest on axioms. Axioms cannot be proved or established and are usually chosen in response to physical existence. We do not know the truth value of axioms. We take them as true. If there is a logical argument about God's existence based on some premises, it would need to be mathematical. The premises couldn't really be empirical ideas about how the universe works etc. The claims made in most logical arguments for God necessarily involve some empirically observed ideas we have, which in turn, rob them of the semiperfect veracity necessary to describe how something "actually is". Like I said, science tells us nothing about how things "actually are". Math/Logic also doesn't either, since these always rest on assumptions.

Like I said, the only Truth you really know with a capital T is that you exist.

My position on God is that IDK, and nobody else does either. People choose to believe, and that is their choice. Some of the stuff people believe is mostly BS according to what we know about physics. It is highly improbable that stuff ever happened. Other stuff could be the case, but we have no way of knowing. I also know that we are all collectively very stupid, and our models and understanding of time, etc are probably woefully inadequate for describing the early universe or to address whether there ever was a "creation" of it or not. We simply do not know. A lot of the models predict that time had a beginning, but that doesn't necessarily mean there had to be cause, weird as that may be. And of course, there is always the question of God's cause then if you use God to resolve this. God doesn't resolve the question of first cause. Our universe may have some shape, and we don't understand that yet. It may be a mathematical structure. Or maybe we develop the math to explain the physical structure it seems to be. Who knows? It's important to understand that our understanding is always a work in progress.

[BetaAsPhuck]

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?

Broceps and I, have both already said that is a valid criticism of the KCA.

You're repeating an argument that has already been addressed ITT.

[BetaAsPhuck]

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.

I agree.

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).

I think that their arguments are strongest against Literalist and Creationist Evangelical Christians. Outside of that group, I've noticed their arguments are really weak.

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.

To be honest, I didn't see Sam's argument other than rehashed utilitarianism. Not, that I thought that was necessarily a bad thing, but it wasn't anything 'groundbreaking' as a 'science of morality' like it was being marketed.

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.

I'm listening to Sean Carroll's opening argument...

Welp, WLC had balls trying to present physics based argument to a physicist to argue for the existence of God.

IME reason can take a person to the precipice of Theism or Deism, but normally it's some thing non-rational that tips them over the edge. Dr Duke Pesta gives an example (which I've heard happened to an atheist who had a deep love for ethical philosophy), reason can take you to a point that you believe that there is a universal/absolute notion of the good, the true and the beautiful, but it can't take you to the conclusion that the good, the true and the beautiful is ultimately a transcendent intelligence - it's something non-rational that takes you there (some kind of transformative or numinous experience).

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.

I 'brace myself' whenever I hear people making arguments invoking science to support the existence of God... The hammer from a physicist isn't too far away.

I learned that watching a Muslim apologist called Hamza Tztorzis getting all his science based arguments for the Quran pulled apart. Quite smartly, he eventually distanced himself from the 'scientific miracles of the Quran' arguments, and stopped using them.

[BrocepCurls]

I agree.



I think that their arguments are strongest against Literalist and Creationist Evangelical Christians. Outside of that group, I've noticed their arguments are really weak.



To be honest, I didn't see Sam's argument other than rehashed utilitarianism. Not, that I thought that was necessarily a bad thing, but it wasn't anything 'groundbreaking' as a 'science of morality' like it was being marketed.



I'm listening to Sean Carroll's opening argument...

Welp, WLC had balls trying to present physics based argument to a physicist to argue for the existence of God.

IME reason can take a person to the precipice of Theism or Deism, but normally it's some thing non-rational that tips them over the edge. Dr Duke Pesta gives an example (which I've heard happened to an atheist who had a deep love for ethical philosophy), reason can take you to a point that you believe that there is a universal/absolute notion of the good, the true and the beautiful, but it can't take you to the conclusion that there is the good, the true and the beautiful is ultimately a transcendent intelligence - it's something non-rational that takes you there (some kind of transformative or numinous experience) .



I 'brace myself' whenever I hear people making arguments invoking science to support the existence of God... The hammer from a physicist isn't too far away.

I learned that watching a Muslim apologist called Hamza Tztorzis getting all his science based arguments for the Quran pulled apart. Quite smartly, he eventually distanced himself from the 'scientific miracles of the Quran' arguments, and stopped using them.

I agree, I think it's impossible (or at least, I've never seen a convincing reason) to make the jump from all of these logic-centered arguments about causality, time, existence/ontology, etc., to the traditional religious conception of God where he loves you and you are his eternal children this that and the other. But then humans have never claimed to be perfectly rational agents at all times and I think most religious folk will happily admit that the leap of faith they take is ultimately a net positive in their life.

Tell me what you thought of the whole Carroll debate after you finish it - I think it really made clear how WLC's (and subsequently most theologians) metaphysics are just far far out of wack with modern concepts of theoretical physics; he's simply using completely outdated terminology to discuss the issues. For example WLC believes the Universe has a "beginning" because colloquially we refer to it having a definitive age (and the BGV theorem may at a surface level indicate as such), but all that tells us from the perspective of physics is that there is point in the past where using the equations of GR to describe the universe fails. To a physicist, that does not in itself prove a beginning - it just shows that we do not yet have an all encompassing mathematical framework of the universe

[BetaAsPhuck]

Like I said, science tells us nothing about how things "actually are". Math/Logic also doesn't either, since these always rest on assumptions.

I agree.

Like I said, the only Truth you really know with a capital T is that you exist.

My position on God is that IDK, and nobody else does either. People choose to believe, and that is their choice.

I think it's better described as an inclination or compulsion, rather than a choice. Same with disbelief.

[primetime32]

And Stephen Hawking's last paper was just published and he said there is no god

11 year old knows more than Stephen Hawking.

[BetaAsPhuck]

But then humans have never claimed to be perfectly rational agents at all times and I think most religious folk will happily admit that the leap of faith they take is ultimately a net positive in their life.

(Just in case anyone jumps in, I am not arguing for the abandonment of rational enquiry.)

That is an argument I make a lot, that the majority of our conclusions have a non-rational basis ultimately, because they rely on our values, presuppositions, assumptions, and 'priming'.

Like Jonathan Haidt makes the case, if someone's overriding social value is liberty, then no amount of data regarding the net benefit of social program X is going to change their position, because care is not a strong value of theirs. The only thing they are concerned about, is how taxing them to pay for the program is infringing upon their personal liberty.

I think the idea that every uses pure rationality to guide their general metaphysical views, ethics, and political philosophy are deluding themselves. Propagandists know that.

Tell me what you thought of the whole Carroll debate after you finish it - I think it really made clear how WLC's (and subsequently most theologians) metaphysics are just far far out of wack with modern concepts of theoretical physics; he's simply using completely outdated terminology to discuss the issues.

Based on what I've heard... I think you've articulated what I think. Sean is pretty much making that clear.

[adimare]

Broceps and I, have both already said that is a valid criticism of the KCA.

You're repeating an argument that has already been addressed ITT.

No, what you said a few times was:

However, (IMO) the strongest criticism of the Kalam Cosmological argument, is that the beginning of the universe doesn't necessarily have to conform to logic.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that your premises are correct in today's Universe but might not have been correct at it's beginning. I'm saying that your premises don't even hold true today, so there's absolutely no reason to believe they were valid at the Universe's origin.

[numberguy12]

ITT we talk about different kinds of truth. Truth itself is not an easily defined concept, but let us consider a few kinds:

Mathematical Truth: Pi > 3. An even integer plus an odd integer equals an odd integer. There are an infinite number of primes. These are statements that are true out of logical necessity. It would be a contradiction for their negations to be true. One arrives at this type of truth through deductive proof. I personally consider these the only "real" true statements, but this is a matter of preference.

Scientific Truth: The planets orbit the sun in nearly elliptical orbits with the sun at a focus. Objects at rest stay at rest unless an outside force acts on them. The half-life of carbon 14 is about 5,730 years. These truths are arrived at through the scientific method, through continual verification, and discarding invalidating claims. They come from observing the universe. They are not proven, in the sense mathematical truths are proven (one could argue Kepler's first law can be proved from Newton's law of gravity, etc, but you are essentially substituting a different physical law which itself is not proven deductively....there has to be physical observation to start with somewhere). These "truths" are not necessarily 100% true, in that any day new empirical evidence could overturn previously trusted physical laws.

Historical Truth: Julius Caesar was a leader of Rome during the 1st century BC. The United States of America was formed in 1776. Dinosaurs existed, and were wiped out by an asteroid. The Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago. These truths can somewhat be lopped in with Scientific Truth, since they are primarily evidence-based. We arrive at different certainties of truth based on observations from the physical world.

And then there is Philosophical "truth": God exists/doesnt exist. "Ethical principle X" is the correct principle to live by. It is not clear what these kinds of truth mean, if anything. As established up-thread, they are not to be confused with actual mathematical truth, in that they must hold true (in other words, it is a contradiction for them to be false). They are also not scientific truth. It is just unclear what a philosophical maxim means at all.....this is why, if anyone is reading this entire thread, you will observe it is almost all babble. Philosophical babble.

[I3igAl]

Playing devils advocate here, the infinite regress problem only applies to things which exist contingently - that is, they either could have or could not have existed. Most theists will tell you that God exists necessarily, not contingently, and so wouldn't need a cause in the same way the universe does as he never "came into being".

Good point. Throwing in god directly before the big bang is still quite arbitrarily. There is no real reason to believe there could not have been 2, 787, 10 Million or 99 billion other causes beetween god and the big bang just because we cannot look that far.

[I3igAl]

Honestly surprised about how many miscers so far seemingly have a good understand of gen rel. And to those that are saying its basic high school physics fuk off, Newtonian physics was high school, gen rel was 400/500 level for me as a math major.
Don't agree with his argument, but the way his brain works is incredible for his age, he can logically support his claims.
Also I don't think we will ever be able to prove if their is a creator/God or not, I assume if a God does exist than he is a lot smarter than us and would figure out a way to keep us all confused.

This. His argument was nothing new, but the way he presented it was pretty amazing. There are professional debaters out there, who cannot explain their point in such a clear and vivid way.

[I3igAl]

ITT we talk about different kinds of truth. Truth itself is not an easily defined concept, but let us consider a few kinds:

Mathematical Truth: Pi > 3. An even integer plus an odd integer equals an odd integer. There are an infinite number of primes. These are statements that are true out of logical necessity. It would be a contradiction for their negations to be true. One arrives at this type of truth through deductive proof. I personally consider these the only "real" true statements, but this is a matter of preference.

Scientific Truth: The planets orbit the sun in nearly elliptical orbits with the sun at a focus. Objects at rest stay at rest unless an outside force acts on them. The half-life of carbon 14 is about 5,730 years. These truths are arrived at through the scientific method, through continual verification, and discarding invalidating claims. They come from observing the universe. They are not proven, in the sense mathematical truths are proven (one could argue Kepler's first law can be proved from Newton's law of gravity, etc, but you are essentially substituting a different physical law which itself is not proven deductively....there has to be physical observation to start with somewhere). These "truths" are not necessarily 100% true, in that any day new empirical evidence could overturn previously trusted physical laws.

Historical Truth: Julius Caesar was a leader of Rome during the 1st century BC. The United States of America was formed in 1776. Dinosaurs existed, and were wiped out by an asteroid. The Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago. These truths can somewhat be lopped in with Scientific Truth, since they are primarily evidence-based. We arrive at different certainties of truth based on observations from the physical world.

And then there is Philosophical "truth": God exists/doesnt exist. "Ethical principle X" is the correct principle to live by. It is not clear what these kinds of truth mean, if anything. As established up-thread, they are not to be confused with actual mathematical truth, in that they must hold true (in other words, it is a contradiction for them to be false). They are also not scientific truth. It is just unclear what a philosophical maxim means at all.....this is why, if anyone is reading this entire thread, you will observe it is almost all babble. Philosophical babble.

I doubt many modern philosophers would call those truth.

[BetaAsPhuck]

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that your premises are correct in today's Universe but might not have been correct at it's beginning. I'm saying that your premises don't even hold true today, so there's absolutely no reason to believe they were valid at the Universe's origin.

That's exactly what I meant.

Broceps had a mini exchange, which clarified that.

Also, you are repeating a criticism of the KCA which is standard, and has been repeated numerous times by numerous people ITT.

Someone else just came into this thread and, repeated the exact same argument (sy2502, her 2nd paragraph). A bunch of you ITT are repeating the same argument, in different wording.

Honestly, your counter argument is the 1st counter argument that atheists present to the KCA. I don't know why you keep ignoring me saying that, if you would have read through the thread, you would have seen people repeating your criticism.

Also... To repeat... I do not use the argument myself, so I don't know why you keep wanting me to address your criticism.

[adimare]

Also, you are repeating a criticism of the KCA which is standard, and has been repeated numerous times by numerous people ITT.

Someone else just came into this thread and, repeated the exact same argument (sy2502, her 2nd paragraph). A bunch of you ITT are repeating the same argument, in different wording.

Honestly, your counter argument is the 1st counter argument that atheists present to the KCA. I don't know why you keep ignoring me saying that, if you would have read through the thread, you would have seen people repeating your criticism.

Also... To repeat... I do not use the argument myself, so I don't know why you keep wanting me to address your criticism.

Wow, Ok, I'm gonna try to explain this as simply as possible, since I still haven't got through to you.

Here's sy2502's paragraph:

Kalam takes a rule (everything has a first cause) and tries to apply it to a very special case, namely the beginning of the universe. It doesn't give a logical argument for why a general rule (general in the sense of our everyday experience) should apply to such an extraordinary, exceptional, unrepeated and unrepeatable (as far as we know) event. Hence it is invalid.

Here's mine:

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?

In simpler terms.

sy2502' argument:
Your premises are true today, but they might not have been true at the beginning of the Universe.

My argument:
Your premises aren't true today, so there's no reason to believe they were true at the beginning of the Universe.

Do you see how the first sentence in those two arguments are the exact opposite of each other? Can someone else chime in? Is it that hard to understand for everyone or just BetaAsPhuck? Am I taking crazy pills?