Talk:Kalam cosmological argument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

You could always argue that there can be an actual infinite since the same laws don't have to apply; it may only apply to this universe; that would appear to be a viable argument against this one. Should it be included in here as a criticism or response?

This argument and its responses are quite well-formed in the literature. In order to include your point, you would need to find a reputable source that has made this criticism/response, and reference or quote that source in the article. Otherwise, it would violate the "no original research" policy of Wikipedia.--Gandalf2000 17:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This argument is a paradox. If an actual infinity can't exist, then how can God exist? But if an actual infinty CAN exist, how can God be the "first" cause?? Infinity0 18:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The paradox is removed when you qualify the statement to read, "actual infinity can't exist in the physical universe". For example, actual infinity does exist in the realm of mathematics, which has partial but not complete correlation to the physical realm. (There is a separate discussion as to whether non-physical things can be "real", such things as mathematics and morality.) If you read the expositions of the Kalam argument, you'll find that it's precisely this paradox that drives the reasoner to conclude that a "prime mover" must exist beyond the constraints of the physical universe, in order to kick-start the whole thing.
On a tangent, see the discussion between Heraclitus and the Eleatics for examples of paradoxes that are resolved by the recognition that actual infinity does not exist in the universe.--Gandalf2000 18:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe this isn't the right place to ask, but what makes that thing from outside the physical universe to be God and not some non-physical inanimate object? DTM 04:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Good observation. "Non-physical" applies because the prime mover must not be constrained by the limitations of the physical universe. However, "inanimate" wouldn't quite apply, since the prime mover must have the capacity to kick-start the whole thing -- kind of the ultimate in animation. That said, the Kalam cosmological argument does not go far at all in determining the attributes of the prime mover, only that one reasonably exists. The teleological argument starts to infer the nature of the designer, namely intelligence or purposefulness.--Gandalf2000 08:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Unmover mover exists or unmoved mover existed?

If we have established that the unmoved mover exists, have we established if it still exists or that it just existed? Any ideas on the arguements or counterarguements for this topic or where the arguements are at right now? (Simonapro 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Let me establish this question a bit more. How does the Kalam cosmological argument verify in esse? (Simonapro 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Where is the balance in this article?

Aside from the irrelevant and largely non-controversial infinity section, the whole argument is based on ambiguous definitions. Craig never defines terms, so he is free to use the same word with different meanings. The ambiguity easily evades casual detection in a blizzard of verbiage. This fawning article contains no critical analysis of the absurd argument It should carry a POV disclaimer or be removed. Unfortunately I don't have time to edit it.

[edit] Please sign your contributions

I would say the article is very important and I would block any move to have it deleted because it follows directly on from Aristotle's concept of a unmoved mover. There are even questions being asked above. It is important. (Simonapro 10:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] One Finger

One can imagine taking a finger and passing an infinite number of dimensionless points on a ruler from one end to the other, but time is not dimensionless or imaginary.

Does this particular sentance have a verifiable source? It smells of OR, because, well, it's flawed. It seems to be trying to compare a whole interval in time to a single point of the ruler. Better would be comparing a time interval to the whole ruler, and a point in time to a point on the ruler. A single point in time is just as dimensionless as any single point in space. And I just now passed my finger over infinitely many points on a ruler (go on, try it) so it's not imaginary either. I just spent infinitely many moments in time writing this comment, too. Endomorphic 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge article

Proposed and Supported. This article basically restates the issues in the cosmological argument article, which covers the ancient Greek, Jewish and Christian forms. The history of the Islamic form should be added to the Cosmlogical argument and this article merged.--Primal Chaos 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite divided by 2 is illogical?

I will copy and paste the question I gave in the wikipedia questions on mathematics forum about this article.

Here is an excerpt from an article in wikipedia of the title above which I find absurd. "Craig describes the impossibility of an actual infinite like an endless bookcase. For example, imagine a bookcase that extends infinitely on which there is an infinite number of books, colored green and red, green and red, and so on. Obviously there would be an infinite number of books. But imagine you remove all red colored books. How many are left? An infinite number. Thus infinity divided by two equals infinity, which is illogical given standard definitions of division. Craig thus attempts to show that infinity, as he defines it, cannot be applied to operations in the world." Why is ∞/2 not equal to ∞? eg. 5/0 /2 = 5/0 = ∞ Why is this illogical? The article just states it without explaining why. The article doesn't even say something like "In his view, this is illogical". It states it as a fact. Nor does it offer an objection to such an absurd assertion.

[edit] Re: Heraclitus and the Eleatics

Gandalf2000, if you are referring to the Zeno paradoxes then you are wrong. Actual infinite can exist even under all such paradoxes. Let's use the first paradox as an example. 1)The Dichotomy: It is impossible to move around a racetrack since we must first go halfway, and before that go half of halfway, and before that half of half of halfway, and . . . . If space is infinitely divisible, we have infinitely many partial distances to cover, and cannot get under way in any finite time.

This is seamingly a paradox but it is fact not. Mathematically is it quite easy to see why. Let's give specific speeds and distances. Say I am going at 50m/s on a 100m race track. According to the paradox, I cannot pass the 100 meter line. After 50m, I have ran for 1s. After half the distance left, I have ran for 1.5s (75m total(T)). After half the distance left (87.5m(T)) I have ran for 1.75s. After half the distance left(93.75m(T)), I have ran for 1.875s etc etc Notice that the time intervals are changing. After 2s, I will in fact cross the line. The paradox assumes that the time intervals aren't changing. I will "never" cross the finish line, becuase the experiment will never permit me to go past 2s into the future. So the word "never" is incorrect. It would be as if Zeno told me: You will never cross the finish line because I'm not going to give you a full 2s to do so.

Mathemtically, simply because I'm adding a finite amount of time each movement, does not mean that an infinite number of motions will require infinite time. The amount of time being added will be smaller and smaller and so will add up to 2s after my infinite motions. Continue the above experiment, further reducing the time interval and you will see that the limit as total distance→100m =2s, not ∞ as the paradox suggests.

[edit] The possibility of objects causing the existance of themselves.

According to this article, the atheist philosopher Quentin Smith has stated that the universe caused itself to exist. From what I understand, he implies that non-existant things can actually cause themselves to begin to exist - is this possible? Can something which is nothing actually cause anything? I think that the cause must actually exist before the consequence, and if the object itself is the cause to its existance, it must have existed before it started to exist. This can't be, or do I err somewhere? MentalMaelstrom 10:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Another problem with this argument

imo, this argument fails at premise 1 which claims things that begin to exist have a cause. But we have no idea whether that is true precisely because we've never seen anything come to exist! All matter was created (we presume) at the big bang. But that's the only time matter has ever come to exist. It's not at all relevant to say cars and paintings come to exist and they have a cause, therefore the universe must have a cause. Cars and paintings don't truly begin to exist--they are simply the rearrangement of existing matter! For this analogy of "things" to "the universe" to be valid, it should read: Premise 1) Everything which begins to exist is a reordering of things that already exist. And that's not a powerful argument for an original cause. This suggests matter is eternal.

There is no such knowledge of whether things that begin to exist have a cause because we've never seen any matter begin to exist. Things we "think" began to exist did not actually begin to exist: they were simply rearrangements of things that already existed. Existence is the question and this argument starts with the answer. --216.152.191.70 (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite regress for the divinity

A further objection may be argued by applying the Kalam argument itself to any case for a divinity: if a divine being exists, then by Premise 1 of the argument, that being must have a cause. This leads to an infinite regression of causes, which undermines the use of this argument to support the existence of one or more supreme divine beings.

This paragraph should either be rewritten or removed. It doesn't respect premise 1 (anything that begins to exist has a cause); and the standard reply is, "But God didn't begin to exist - so God doesn't need a cause." It would be better to point out that any divinity that doesn't begin to exist is beyond the laws of the universe, and make the connection to non-supernatural causes of the universe that are also beyond the laws of the universe, etc. Langelgjm (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a too common objection to reject from an encyclopedia. I will attempt to locate Russell's book to establish that it is common even among highly regarded philosophers. The answer to this objection will also be included.

Another problem is the philosophical definition of "universe." What is it? Should it be exactly observable space-time as scientists describe? Ought the definition be "everything that exists," which would necessarily include God? And what proof is held that no actual infinites can exist in "our universe" while an actual universe can exist outside of it? The whole idea seems to be an elaborate construction even if this argument is taken as true, and the idea of a personal God described by any human religious text does not at all follow the conclusion. But until I find some support for this argumentative position, I will leave it out. Dndnerd (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)