This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

To atheists, what is your opinion on the Kalamazoo Cosmological Argument?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. To atheists, what is your opinion on the Kalamazoo Cosmological Argument?

User Info: Amerium

Amerium
3 months ago#1
Hey all. I'm new to GameFAQs, and I'm interested in learning others opinions on faith in God. I personally identify as an atheist, but I'm actually intrigued then by the KCA. It's certainly one of the better arguments regarding the existence of God.

I just wanted to hear what atheists think of this. Is the Kalam Cosmological Argument sound? Do you agree with the whole "something can't come from nothing" claim?
"Morality, a figment of one man's fancy, superfluous sans optimism"
-Ethan Joseph, Thanatophobia

User Info: JKFrost

JKFrost
3 months ago#2
The Kalam Cosmological Argument's biggest flaw is presuming that before the Big Bang, there was nothing. This is blatantly unproven and, frankly, untestable.

I admit energy and matter would have needed time and space in our material universe, but nobody knows what physics this "nothingness" adhered to prior to the expansion. It's illogical to draw the conclusion that something can't come from nothing, as that's currently only true in our material universe. And the worst part is, there's no proof there wasn't anything before the BB. There is, however, proof of a singularity prior to the beginning of time and space, where energy and matter existed on a quantum level, which didn't need any cause (especially not divine intervention). This is far more logical as a conclusion to the "first cause" issue than any God.

I'm honestly surprised atheists never try to attack the KCA with this logic. Since we don't understand how physics and the sort functioned before Space and Time, using math that's true in our universe is fallacious in attempting to explain the Big Bang. It leads to special pleading, and assuming that anything the precedes time and space is some primordial, sacrosanct deity who gives a damn about us, or even some superfluous first mover.

The Big Bang is not, and I want to accentuate this as much as possible, NOT an explanation for the origin of the Universe, only the beginning of Space and Time. The Universe, in it's most basic form, could be some eternal mass of existence. Why assume it has meaning, or even cause? And furthermore, why is it illogical to assume this God had a cause just because it's allegedly "eternal"? That makes no sense as an argument against the idea of a natural cause, since the Universe could be eternal, as well.

I actually tried to argue with others a while back that energy was the cause of the Big Bang (lol) since it couldn't be created or destroyed. Case in point, I thought it was a force. XD However, I now understand the argument better, and while it's certainly a more logical argument than, say, the argument from fine tuning, it suffers from the same flaws and commits the same logical fallacies the other cosmological arguments do. To me, it's just a bunch of appeals to philosophy and emotion, and it's also probably the worst offender to the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy.

The KCA brings up a decent point in assuming that anything that precedes the Universe would need to be something unfathomable, but God is just...too unfathomable.
My dream is a world without abysmal Nick Cage Films. Also Kohr Brothers...and Cary Elwes.
:|

User Info: JKFrost

JKFrost
3 months ago#3
Also yes, I did notice the autocorrection in your title. No worries, it's cool. :P
My dream is a world without abysmal Nick Cage Films. Also Kohr Brothers...and Cary Elwes.
:|

User Info: Wes62

Wes62
3 months ago#4
I'm a theist and I don't think the KCA is very sound.
Sig

User Info: Neoprime616

Neoprime616
3 months ago#5
Yeah, something can't come from nothing.

User Info: ManLink4321

ManLink4321
3 months ago#6
Wes62 posted...
I'm a theist and I don't think the KCA is very sound.


Then why has it never been refuted?
The Hero of Hyrule.

User Info: dhalsimrocks

dhalsimrocks
3 months ago#7
I have a few problems with cosmological arguments, even the modal version, which I think is better than KCA but still flawed.

One is the idea that something can't come from nothing. The problem I have here is that we have no evidence of anything "coming from" anything. What we see as acts of creation is merely matter and energy changing state. That matter and energy was there before it's just in a new arrangement. We've never witnessed matter and energy being created. So this premise is exactly the question I think we're trying to answer. Where did the matter and energy come from or is it eternal? Or to put it into the formal KCA terms, we have no examples of anything beginning to exist and the premise is flawed.

I also have a problem with the second premise, that the universe began to exist. We simply don't know or have enough information. At best I think we can say "The universe might have begun to exist."

Lastly, I have problems with the conclusion that a supremely intelligent deity designed and willed the universe into existence. This requires the existence of a few things we have no evidence for, primarily a being that has intelligence and will without a brain or simply that a non-physical being can even exist in the first place.

Moorish_Idol isn't an atheist but he's the local authority on cosmological arguments, particularly modal. It's just that he and I disagree on the probabilities involved. I simply believe it is more probable that the universe is eternal (and thus the necessary entity) rather than a non-physical being with intelligence and a will.
May all your disgraces be private

User Info: JKFrost

JKFrost
3 months ago#8
ManLink4321 posted...
Wes62 posted...
I'm a theist and I don't think the KCA is very sound.


Then why has it never been refuted?

Because it's never been proven, either.
My dream is a world without abysmal Nick Cage Films. Also Kohr Brothers...and Cary Elwes.
:|

User Info: JKFrost

JKFrost
3 months ago#9
Neoprime616 posted...
Yeah, something can't come from nothing.

Agian, this is only currently absolute fact in our current Universe, which exhibits the existence of Space and Time. No one knows if that's true regardless.
My dream is a world without abysmal Nick Cage Films. Also Kohr Brothers...and Cary Elwes.
:|

User Info: ManLink4321

ManLink4321
3 months ago#10
JKFrost posted...
ManLink4321 posted...
Wes62 posted...
I'm a theist and I don't think the KCA is very sound.


Then why has it never been refuted?

Because it's never been proven, either.


It has, though. William Lane Craig has shed some light on this argument in many recent years, and so have many, many other Christian thinkers.
The Hero of Hyrule.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. To atheists, what is your opinion on the Kalamazoo Cosmological Argument?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived