Kalam's Cosmological Argument

After watching yet another debate where William Lane Craig uses this argument, I figured I would take a stab at it. We are going to focus on the beginning of the argument before getting into the part about the cause needing to be both personal and timeless. So, here is the basic syllogism we are going to start with(as presented by Craig):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

In my attempt to refute this argument it is important to understand these fallacies:

The fallacy of equivocation- Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic word. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation)

The fallacy of Composition-The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition)

The fallacy of division-A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division)

Now that we have clearly defined some fallacies we can begin our rebuttal of the KCA. The first thing we can point out is that, the argument may well be equivocating the universe as just another thing. A point was made by famous Christian philosopher,Alvin Plantinga, that the universe is just another thing. The universe is actually the set of all things. So, we can look at the universe this way. This rebuttal to me does not seem enough so we shall go a step further. Since now the universe is the set of all things, or all things are parts of the universe, we look at how the argument works. Premise 1, is obtained by using inductive reasoning to see that everything we observe that begins to exist has a cause. The problem here is that everything that we observe to begin to exist is a part of the universe. To then try and say that this means the universe must have a cause, is to attribute this characteristic of the parts of the universe to the parts. This by definition as we have seen is the fallacy of composition.

I have also heard other philosophers go the other direction. The universe is the matter and the energy that everything is made of, in other words the universe is just the parts that everything is made of. You then try to make argument work by making the attributes of the whole( the things made from matter and energy) to the matter and energy itself. If you look at the universe this way, by definition the argument has now committed the fallacy of division. Thinking about the argument this way can bring us to another problem.

That problem is this, everything that we have known to exist was caused by the rearranging of matter and energy. Which is a different kind of causation then to cause from ex nihilo, or from nothing. The argument equivocates the idea that causation follows the same rules for things that come from matter and energy and things that do not. These are too different categories of beginning to exist and you cannot draw conclusions about going from nothing to something, based on going from something to something different. This is fallacious thinking.

You may still be saying at this point, well something can't come from nothing, right? Well how do you know? What nothing have you ever seen? We have not ever observed nothing in the philosophical sense(not the physics sense) to draw any conclusions about what will or won't happen with nothing. That claim is not very justified. (this section I credit to an episode of the atheist experience from Tracy Harris).


So, now we have seen that the argument can't make it through the first part without being fallacious, but lets say for the sake of it that you still think that the universe has a cause. If we are drawing that conclusion from our experiences, in spite of that being fallacious, then you should come to the conclusion that the cause is non personal. Why inductive reasoning shows that the set of complex things caused by non personal causes, far outweighs the set of complex things created by personal causes. Here it is:

Set of things with no evidence of a personal cause(solar systems, planets,start, galaxies, comets, forests, plants, animals.....) > complex things made by design(man made things)


So, in conclusion we are forced to say that Kalams Cosmological argument fails to prove god on a number of different levels. The syllogism is fallacious in many ways, and even if the syllogism were sound the same type of inductive reasoning used to get us to the cause, can be used against it to say that the personal cause is unlikely.

Silly Baptisms

So, yesterday I was going through my facebook account and saw a picture of someone being baptized,a grown man. After a short deliberation about posting a comment I decided to post this: Im sorry but as someone who has studied religion extensively, seems somewhat silly to me, to recognize a man who didn't exist(not the way you think) by jumping in water. If you thik Im wrong for saying this, sorry, but I think the truth deserves a spot in our lives too. This would spark a fire storm of hate comments back. I feel this needs to be discussed. Lets take a look at what a baptism is about. It is about recognizing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So here is the story: 2000 years ago a man was born of a virgin, walked around performing miracles, and was killed on a cross for all our sins. After this he would raise from the dead to prove he is the son of god and to head up to heaven to await us. Now, we flash forward 2000 years and this man supposedly is pleased with 2 grown men jumping in a giant bath together.(Also, apparently displeased that 2 other men may go into the wrong type of bathhouse together, at least according to a little read book about him, the bible). That is what they are telling me is the case and I say its silly and get jumped on. For the love of humanity, it is a scary place where I (in that post) am the only one who recognizes just how silly that really is. If you don't get how silly that is please just go back and read it again. In what other context would we not find this story amusing and silly? The reactions I got were to call me disrespectful, angry, ignorant and more. Lets take a second and pretend that what they had posted was not so blatantly silly, and place a little scenario without religion and see how this plays out. Lets say I have been on my facebook page and it is full of references to nutrition and medicine. I am a semi-expert on this topic and it is clear I read up about it and care a great deal about it from my posts. Lets then suppose the same person that posted the picture posts a picture of them and some new "medical" product that helps you sleep. I comment like this: Im sorry but as someone who studies medicine somewhat extensively, seems silly to me, that medicine does not work the way you think. I hardly doubt we would get nonsense comments about how angry I am, or ignorant. I would probably get inquisitions about why I think it is useless. Furthermore, if I then went onto quote top level doctors and their opinions I would not get a response of hate even further( I referenced many biblical scholars in the earlier post). I would not expect to hear nonsense like, any fool can read a book that just agrees with your opinion(not saying it definitely wouldn't happen, but its far less likely). I would get far more comments about re-evaluating the use of the medicine, especially if I also cited the harmful effects of it on you and others. It is truly sad that rational reasoning takes a backdoor for iron age mythology. It is truly a sad day to note that I even have to mention that this whole baptism thing is silly, let alone be the one left explaining myself.

Ontological Argument debunked.

I am going to put this argument to bed here. So, we must first give a definition.

Maximally great being- a being in which none could be greater.

Now we have the actual argument, which I will present in its entirety and then break down the premises to show how it works. As presented by Plantinga:

1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6) Therefore maximally great being exists.

Ok so premise 1: 1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

It is important to note, that this is actual possibility, not perceived possibility. This will become important later. To explain this a little, it is possible that something could be perceived to be possible yet in actuality it is impossible. Therefore in order for this to work we need to know it is actually possible, or at least say it is likely to be possible. As of right now that seems ok.

Now onto premise 2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

Possibility of existence naturally implies that in some possible world it exists. This may not be the real world but if it didn't exist in some possible world then it would be impossible, so this premise is good.

Onto Premise 3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world.

The logic behind this appears to be that if a being could exist in all possible worlds then it would be greater then a being that only exists in some possible worlds. While I would agree, we could dispute that it is logically possible for a being to exist in every possible world. After all the point of changing god from the omni god to maximally great was to avoid paradoxes. Yet alas I will grant this premise. This means that the only way a maximally great being exists is if this is the set of possible universes:(M=Maximally great being)

(M.M.M,M,M,M,M......)

in other words you could not have these sets:NM( no maximally great being)

(M,M,NM,M,NM........)
(NM,M,NM,NM,NM,NM......)

or any variation that combines the two.

So now, we have a updated definition of Maximally great being:
Maximally great being: a being in which none could be greater that exists in every possible world.

We move onto premise 4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.

This is pretty basic, the actual world is a possible world so its obvious that if this being exists in every possible world it exists in the actual world.

Premise 5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

Same thing here, anything that exists in the actual world exists. Obvious, no complaints.

6) Therefore maximally great being exists.

So obviously the conclusion follows if we get up to this point with all arguments being sound.

That is how the Ontological argument works;

This can appear very appealing to a theist and they think they have their proof. A closer look and we can see a problem. As Plantinga himself proposes we could define No Maximality. No Maximality is defined as: the property of being such that there is no maximally great being. Ok so onto the anti-ontological argument.

1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.
2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.
3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists.
6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists.

Ok, so lets see if this argument works the same way.

1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.

Again, in order to know for sure that no maximality exists it must be actual possibility, not perceived possibility.

Premise 2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.

Same reasoning as for the original argument, if a no maximality possibly exists, that would mean it exists in some possible universe, otherwise it would be impossible.

Ont Premise 3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

This is where the theist, usually whines and complains that no maximality has no requirement to exist in every possible universe. But, alas the theist has defined Maximally great being in such a way that yes it does. Once you have the first possible universe in your set as this:

(NM)

We have already established through the theists own logic that a maximally great being would not exist in a set of universes that has a universe that contains its opposite. So therefore the only universe "No Maximality" can exist in is :

(NM,NM,NM,NM,NM,NM,NM.....)

So based on the theists own reasoning and a little bit of reductio ad absurdum logic, which is as follows: A maximally great being cannot exist in all possible universes, yet not exist in a possible universe. That is breaking the law of non-contradiction.

Onto Premise 4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

Same reasoning as for the previous argument.

Premises: 5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists.
6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists.

as for 5 and 6 we then get there the same way.

So, as is now obvious both arguments get to their beings existing as long as the being is possible.

Analyzing the 2 sides now:


Now we must determine which is actually possible or at least probable. If the theist were to prove the maximally great being as probable, they would have to argue that their being was more likely then "no maximality." If they wanted to completely prove their god, they would be best suited to use reductio ad absurdum that no maximality is absurd. Now, I am not sure that we can reduce either side to absurdity with our knowledge now. So, at best we can say that it is 50/50 which being exists. I would argue though that it is far less then that.

The no maximality, is less restrictive on possible universes and also requires less assumptions. Currently we don't know of any Maximally great beings, so assuming one is possible is one more assumption. Also it seems that a maximally great being would have a certain impact on universes that would restrict the possible universes. As the logical construct of Occam's razor says, all things being equal the idea that requires the least assumptions and is the least restrictive is preferred.

I would also argue that a maximally great being is pretty well defeated by the problem of evil, as long as you take the assumption that it would be greater to stop suffering, then it is to let it happen. There does not appear to be any logical inconsistency with stopping suffering. Therefore it appears to me, once we look at this, No maximality actually has a greater probability then a Maximally great being. Good Night ontological argument.

Atheists morality comes from the same place religious morality does.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”- Steven Weinberg

I figured I would start out with that quote. While the quote is not necessarily true, it does have some merit to it. We must first address what morality or good and bad things are. I argue that all of our morality comes from the same place, benefit to society or human and animal well being. If you are an atheist or a theist this is where your morality has come from.

Let me explain for the theists. I am going to stick with Judaism and Christianity for this example, although Islam will follow the same path. Judaism gets you to follow God's law by telling their believers that Yahweh rewards people for following the law and punishes people for not following the law. So, in essence the rules will relate to the Jewish peoples well being so they follow those rules. Christianity and Islam do similar things but extend the benefit to human well being to outside this life into another. The eastern religions use similar things such as reincarnation. In the end, the religions are subconsciously playing off of our drive for well being, which is where all morality comes from. This is also where atheist morality comes from. So, now that we can say that based on what we have labeled morality that good acts are acts that benefit well being and bad acts are acts that do not benefit well being, it is time to look at whether we can make objective decisions about these.

Ironically, we need not look much further then these same religious examples to see that we can. What have these religions demonstrated? Let me explain, each one of these religions has shown that if you change the "facts on the ground" and give people incorrect information then we see differing morality. In other words morality comes from facts about what gives us the most human well being. If these facts are incorrect we get good people doing bad things. Examples of this range from the obvious, in WW2 we can see that the German society had been in bad shape and was looking for a reason to figure out why they weren't experiencing a higher standard of well-being. Hitler was able to convince them that their society was being hurt by the Jews. This is what enabled good people to do bad things. There were obviously Germans who did not buy into Hitlers propaganda, so that explains them as well. Another example would be the example of parents praying for their child over seeking medical attention. The parents have been convinced that pray works to heal, and psychologists have even testified that these parents were trying to do what they felt was right. They were, the problem is their view of what is right was obscured by incorrect "facts on the ground."

That last example makes it easy to see that there are actual right or wrong answers to moral questions. Since, our morality comes from benefit to society or human well being, then the statistics don't lie. Medical treatment for this child was a better option then praying as it has a greater chance of increasing the child and the parent mental well beings. Can we measure well being, some of you may be asking. Well the answer is we may not be able to get absolute certainty, but being we do know information about life expectancy and neuroscience is currently studying happiness in an objective manner, we can say that there are actual answers these questions. We just need to do our best to get the correct facts to make our best judgement on these important questions. This is yet another way religion poisons society. It gives us incorrect facts that can negatively effect our morality.

Prayer Billboards

So, If you are driving anywhere from East Stroudsburg to Allentown, you will start to notice signs about prayer and families staying together. They come from the website: Worldatprayer.org. Here is a link to what he signs look like, though the color scheme is different: http://www.familytheater.org/~/media/Images/FamilyTheater/Billboards/HCFM-billboard-family-1024.jpg

Now advertisers are typically required to present truth in advertising. We all know everyone would be in an uproar if an atheist put up a true sign,let alone a sign that doesn't tell the truth. So lets take a look does this ring true. Well born again christians would be more likely to pray, so they should divorce less, but not so much. In a study done by a Christian researcher they have a 27% rate of divorce. The liberal Christian has a 24% rate of divorce. Finally those lowly atheists who don't pray together, well a 21% rate of divorce. This seems a blatant lie. While, I can see where it comes from, the fact that families that do activities together do tend to have better relationships. Though, these stats may indicate that better activities exist then prayer. Should truth in advertising apply to religions, and if so, shouldn't this organization have to demonstrate the truthfulness of this claim.

Faith in one specific god is a form of special pleading.

I apologize this will be a very bland blog but it is to prove a point. I have people telling me it is rational to place faith in one specific god. I want to be clear this is based on faith alone. Lets look at the definition of rational to come up with a way we can falsify this.

World English Dictionary
rational (ˈræʃən ə l) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— adj
1. using (good)* reason or (good)*logic in thinking out a problem

*I inserted the (good) into the definition as to not confuse some readers coming over from a certain website who have problems grasping context.

Ok, so we know that being rational is to use or be in accordance with logic. What is not in accordance with logic? Well that would be a logical fallacy. So, if we can demonstrate that placing faith in one specific god is no using logic or thinking out a problem and instead is the opposite we have proven it is not rational. Lets go:


We have multiple possible gods. Lets see for example: Thor, Jesus, Yahweh(jewish), Allah, Zeus, Mithra, Dionysus, and Trickster. All of which one can place faith in.

Since, this is the only thing you can use here, how does one determine which god is the only one to place faith in. Can it be rational to choose just one? Lets take a look. From http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html we find that special pleading takes this form.

Rule: Xs are generally Ys.
x is an X.
x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic).
Therefore, x is not a Y.

If we can demonstrate that picking one on faith alone takes this form we have a fallacy. So lets see if picking one takes this form:

Premise 1: Gods I generally don't grant faith

Premise 2: My god is an exception of the rule because I picked that one

Conclusion: Therefore my god is not a god I don't grant faith.

Ok, now remember premise 1 is true, because there are quite a few gods and you are granting faith to only one specific god.Premise 2 is merely you picking your god.

This clearing takes the form of special pleading. Since from the same link we find special pleading is a logical fallacy we have this problem:

A decision based on a fallacy is not based on logic and reason
This decision is based on a fallacy.

Conclusion this decision is not based on logic and reason.

Since, Rational is defined as: using reason or logic in thinking out a problem, and this is the opposite. We conclude that it is not rational to place faith in only one god.

Watchmaker or Teleological argument

"The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as:

The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.
As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.

In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument — rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or not it was the product of intelligent design.

In most formulations of the argument, the characteristic that indicates intelligent design is left implicit. In some formulations, the characteristic is orderliness or complexity (which is a form of order). In other cases it is clearly being designed for a purpose, where clearly is usually left undefined." According to Wikipedia.


This argument is based on a very faulty presupposition. The argument attempts to use probability to prove a designer of the universe. The problem with this line of reasoning is this its not probable. Let me explain:

In order for a complex thing to imply design we would need to see that out of the number of complex things we observe the majority(above 50%) are demonstrably designed. I am being generous with the 50% number I would think it should be higher but we will go with this. So do things we know to be designed outnumber the number of stars, galaxies, black holes, planets, plants, comets, and more. Well the resounding answer is no. The number of things we know to be designed in the universe that are complex pales in comparison to the things we consider complex that have no evidence for a designer and appear to come about naturally.

In the set of watches for example we have seen enough evidence of design that in the watch set it is probable for design. Unfortunately, for this argument the set of watches is not the same as the set of all complex things. Complex things have not been demonstrated to be over 50% designed. That is why whenever you observe something in the set of complex items you need to go a step further and still find further evidence of design, because the probability of complex items being designed has not been proven to be more probable.

Let me provide a further example to demonstrate the failure of this argument. Lets take the set of football's and try to draw a conclusion abut the set of balls(no dirty minds). All footballs are oblong and have points at the end. If someone says they have a football it is reasonable to expect it to have that shape. It may even be reasonable for someone who has only been exposed to footballs to think that all balls will have that shape. Once a person has been exposed to the set of baseballs, soccer balls, beach balls, basketballs, bouncy balls, tennis balls, and golf balls, this stance of expecting a ball to be oblong and have 2 points on it is no longer reasonable or rational. That is the same failure that a person exposed to the facts of the universe makes when they make this argument. You can not attribute a attribute of a subset to a set just because you want to, it is too likely to be flawed.