Refutation of A Mad Atheist

A Mereological Nihilist Teaches The Art Of

Sophistry

Atheist:

But if gods exist, we would expect their existence to be more than obvious. Just as a loving father does not leave his offspring in any doubt as to his existence, so also a loving god.

Of course there might exist evil or indifferent gods for whom this logic doesn’t apply, but for the purposes of this argument we can ignore such cases.

Reply:

It is quite obvious for us. Unfortunately not for you. So the questions you need to ask is
Q1) Is observation the only source of knowledge in your books?
Q2) What about reason or rationality?
Q3)What about things such as “a part is smaller than the whole”, 2 is greater than 1, 2+2=4, A square circle cannot exist, Infinity by definition cannot end. Do you think you can attest to the truth of these statements without resorting to observation? If your answer is “Yes” this is the knowledge which we are talking about that establishes the existence of a creator. If your answer is “No” then ,
Q4) You claim to know that “one cannot know anything except by observation.” Tell us how do you know that by observation?

Atheist:

It’s nice to know you have “knowledge” … “that establishes the existence of a creator”. Unfortunately none of this logic points to any god whatsoever, and in particular gives no support to the major superstitions currently in vogue.

There seems to be a lot of hand waving in your argument but I don’t want to enter into such frivolity. We can all cherry pick bad analogies and then pretend all of nature, material and immaterial behaves in the same way. This is not a proof at all, just wishful thinking.

Physicists know that there are some events that are not caused, they are random, and these become increasingly common at the smallest scales. Consequently your analogy, and all similar analogies like “Therefore, by rational necessity, it must have been a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails].” are inappropriate.

We don’t need “beings” to move things at all. This is just your brain attributing agency to inanimate causes. Think about it. What “causes” a snow flake to fall out of the sky?

Let me illustrate the point more vividly my saying that were your logic correct, it implies that everything evil was also caused by your necessarily existent Being! Congratulations! Your Creator is a devil!

I showed that, “Just as a loving father does not leave his offspring in any doubt as to his existence, so also a loving god.”.

You seem to think that gods are obvious. May I ask then why you need such a long and tedious and contradictory essay to attempt to prove it?

“‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’? We say, it is indeed a self-evident truth. It is one of those things which are ingrained in our very nature.” If nonsense were ingrained in our very nature it is probably the cause of many arrogant superstitions. But Nature teaches us that reality is quite different to everyday experience or even to common sense. It is humbling to see dogmatic superstition crumble under the scrutiny of honest evaluation. Self evident truths almost always turn out to be false (think of the declaration of independence).

For completeness I rapidly respond to your premises:

This particular movement of my hand is something which began to exist. No, movement cannot be compared to creation. All linear movement is relative. A mere perception of the observer. Whether or not movement is real, or has existence in the material sense, you have not shown it to be a valid analogy of creation (which is material). You have not demonstrated that there ever was a creation nor first cause for anything.

Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Things can be defined into “existence” or “beginning” if you equivocate as to what these words mean. You conflate the creation of movement with the creation of universe(s). In reality, movement of the arm is conversion of energy. Nothing material is “created”. The premise is false. What is the cause that 1+1=2? Does “2” even exist?

Therefore, this particular movement of my hand must have a cause. This conclusion from the previous false premises. The same goes for you other conclusions which you call premises.

Reply:

"If nonsense were ingrained in our very nature it is probably the cause of many arrogant superstitions. But Nature teaches us that reality is quite different to everyday experience or even to common sense. It is humbling to see dogmatic superstition crumble under the scrutiny of honest evaluation. Self evident truths almost always turn out to be false (think of the declaration of independence)"

Are you writing here just for the sake of writing?

The argument clearly states : "As far as the truth of our second premise is concerned, many will be satisfied with what was mentioned in the previous paragraph (Self-evident) . Some will naturally need more. Not a problem. We have a second method for demonstrating the truth of the proposition. This second method is nothing more than taking one first principle (the causality principle) and explaining it in light of another more clear first principle, namely the impossibility of contradiction. The questions to our opponent at this time would be: Do you accept that contradictions are impossible? Do you accept that every thesis has an antithesis? Do you accept that if one of two direct opposites is false on account of involving contradiction, then by rational necessity the other must be true?"

“Physicists know that there are some events that are not caused, they are random, and these become increasingly common at the smallest scales”.

Whenever something comes into existence or begins to exist, the following claims can be made about its existence.

1) It was necessary: Clearly this is self-contradictory because whatever begins to exist by definition cannot be said to be necessary, else it would have been existent since eternity past and moments ago we agreed that something began to exist.

2)It was impossible: Clearly this is self-contradictory because something began to exist. To say that it was impossible is to deny that something came into existence (began to exist) and moments ago we agreed that something began to exist.

3)It was possible: Since it wasn't necessary (else it would have been necessary since eternity past and it wouldn't have begun to exist) and it wasn't impossible (else it wouldn't have begun to exist), it must be merely possible in existence. What does possible in existence entail?
There was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would have been necessary) neither its nature required non-existence (else it would have been impossible). So the existence and non-existence are equal with respect to the very nature of this thing i.e intrinsic to itself. Equal in what sense? None is preponderant over the other.
Now when such a thing begins to exist from prior non-existence, it has to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over non-existence. You can't say this thing occured causelessly because that would lead to a contradiction. Please note we agreed that such a thing was a possibility and there was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would be necessary/eternal) and niether it required non-existence (else it would be impossible). Both existence and non-existence were equal. Now when you claim that this thing began to exit without a cause, you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence? (This absurdity is known as Preponerance without a preferror).

Note: The necessary truth of the proposition has been proven rationally.This can no longer be contested by any emperical evidence, or scientific observation. Rather, if one presents anything along these lines to contest the universal application of the proposition, the reply will be simple: obviously, the most such an observation can show us is the lack of an observable cause. It does not solve the contradiction we highlighted just now.

"Let me illustrate the point more vividly my saying that were your logic correct, it implies that everything evil was also caused by your necessarily existent Being! Congratulations! Your Creator is a devil!"

Until you refute the argument given, i will not address this. I am sorry. This is because here you assume, the argument is valid. I don’t deal with assumptions. Once you admit the argument is VALID, we will deal with this.

"This particular movement of my hand is something which began to exist. No, movement cannot be compared to creation. All linear movement is relative. A mere perception of the observer. Whether or not movement is real, or has existence in the material sense, you have not shown it to be a valid analogy of creation (which is material). You have not demonstrated that there ever was a creation nor first cause for anything".

Are you denying the movement of the hand took place? Do you acknowledge the movement of the hand “Began to exist”. If you deny “Movement” I will not entertain any replies from you anymore.

“Whether or not movement is real, or has existence in the material sense, you have not shown it to be a valid analogy of creation (which is material)”.
I repeat do you deny the existence of a movement (from prior non-existence) with respect to my hand? If you deny this, i will withhold having any conversation with you. I have no time for sophistry.

“you have not shown it to be a valid analogy of creation”

The Kalam premises DONOT depend on this. Wake up please. All it is asking you is to acknowledge the movement of my hand DID take place. Whether it was a “creation” or not will be dealt with in the next premises.

“Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Things can be defined into “existence” or “beginning” if you equivocate as to what these words mean. You conflate the creation of movement with the creation of universe(s). In reality, movement of the arm is conversion of energy. Nothing material is “created”. The premise is false.”

You are resorting to a lie, now. And this will be exposed right here, right now.
Rearrangement= conversion of energy.

The "rearrangement" that takes place within pre-existing matter, is called a change and it is essentially a beginning. This change is something that began to exist. Therefore it can be said that this change was non-existent before and then it came into existence. All we are concerned with is that a "change of state (Read: Rearrangement)" took place. This change could be anything that "began to exist."
So I ask you what is the difference between:
"re-arrangement" of pre-existing matter (Something that began to exist) and creation of the universe (Something that began to exist) in terms of requiring a cause?
Since any change is essentially a beginning and "it is something that began to exist" and the creation of the universe is also "something that began to exist." What difference does it make in terms of requiring a cause or as far as Kalam cosmological argument is concerned?

In fact the coming into existence of a universe "from nothing" or the change in the "pre-existing" matter both are something that are "possible" in existence.
By possible I mean
They weren't necessary (else it would have been existent since eternity past and it wouldn't have begun to exist) and it wasn't impossible as well (else it wouldn't have begun to exist), it must be merely possible in existence. What does possible in existence entail? There was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would have been necessary) neither its nature required non-existence (else it would have been impossible). So the existence and non-existence are equal with respect to the very nature of this thing i.e intrinsic to itself. Equal in what sense? None is preponderant over the other.

Note: Consider an example for instance where I raise my hand from my lap. Previously the hand was resting on my lap. Did the movement of my hand began to exist?
By "Beginning to exist" we mean this particular movement was previously non-existent and then it began to exist (when i raised my my hand). If you choose to call this movement as "rearrangement" of pre-existing matter even then it doesn't change the fact that the particular movement or re-arrangement came into existence from prior non-existence i.e. the hand did move. The movement in the hand Began to exist.

Therefore, rearrangement/change (in a pre-existing matter ) was non-existent before and then came into existence, therefore it began to exist.
The universe was non-existent before and then it came into existence therefore it began to exist.
Since both of them began to exist, both of them require a cause.

Now when such an event leaves the realm of non-existence and enters existence, it has to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over non-existence. Otherwise, this is impossible on account of involving preponderance without a preferrer namely "how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence?"

Why can't the nature of the cause be contingent?

To claim that the cause, which resulted in the coming into existence of the universe or rearrangement in the pre-existing matter, was of the very same nature as the universe or rearrangement, namely something which itself began to exist, is not possible, because positing this necessitates that the universe remained in the realm of non-existence and the rearrangement in the pre-existing matter never took place.

If one assigns properties to causality and existence such as being confined within spacetime [and other such attributes entailed by contingency], then they are essentially claiming that an infinite series of cause/effect relationships must have been concluded before the movement of my hand could ever have had a chance to begin to exist. This however is impossible because infinity can not end. That would be a contradiction in terms. If it ends, it can never be infinite. If it is infinite, it can never end.

Note: To exploit the difference between rearrangement of pre-existing matter and the creation (ex-nihilo) of the universe was a side track and a red herring. As it has been made quite clear already, that whatever begins to exist ("Re-arrangement"in the pre-existing matter or the coming into existence of a universe out of nothing) requires a cause that is not contingent. We ask the atheist isn't the premise of the Kalam cosmological argument sufficient enough to understand when it says "Everything that begins to exist require a cause." The side-track was "How different things begin to exist?" and this is not relevant to the Kalam argument.The entire argument of the atheist is a diversion tactics and an attempt to divert the readers attention from "everything that begins to exist has a cause" to "How different things begin to exist?". This is not what the Kalam cosmological argument in question deals with, because it is irrelavant as far as things beginning to exist and requiring a cause is concerned.

You are resorting to what we call Mereological Nihilism: is the view that there are no composite objects. It is important that we address this before moving forward. Some atheists attack the premise "Everything that begins to exist must have cause" by making a claim "Nothing ever begins to exist. It is simply a rearrangement of pre-existing matter or matter that was always existent." That is to say all that exists is a mere rearrangement of matter that always existed. So in fact, there are no cars, chairs, horses,dogs or people. Therefore his denial of "things began to exist" isn't an affirmation that the atheist always existed but it is the acceptance of his non-existence i.e. he never began to exist in the first place. This is an extreme form of relativism or sophistry, where a person claims to doubt everything, even sometimes his or her own existence. Since they thereby doubt the existence of proofs, arguing with them is a useless activity. Instead, they are handled by putting them in a situation where they are forced to admit the certain existence of sensory reality. An example of how this can be done, is saying to them, “I will not discuss anything with you until you admit that you are certain that we are speaking to one another.” A slightly harsher way is to throw some cold water in their face, and when they complain say, “you mean the water you are not certain exists thrown in the face you are not certain exists by a person you are not certain exists?” A more simpler methodology is to ask the atheist "Do you believe the "rearrangement" in the pre-existing matter took place i.e the rearrangement began to exist?" If he denies this, then his whole propositon falls apart namely "all that exists is a mere rearrangement of matter that always existed and nothing ever begins to exist" because it is a contradiction of terms. (Holding "nothing ever begins to exist" and "Rearrangement began to exist" to be true at the same time leads to a contradiction).

More over, admitting that conversion or rearrangement took place in pre-existing matter (or energy) PROVES that the pre-existing matter is Not Eternal (uncreated). It is merely contingent.
The reasons for this are:

Because if the matter is deemed necessary or eternal, the mind absolutely doesnot accept its non-existence.
1) To claim that a matter was necessary in existence (eternal or (always existent) and then it changed (rearranged or entertained a beginning in existence) is contradiction of terms because how can the matter be necessary in existence (It's very nature requires it to exist) and possible in existence with respect to itself ( there is nothing in its nature that prefers non-existence and there is nothing in its nature that requires existence)?

2) Re-arrangement produces a change in the matter. Any change is essentially a beginning and all beginnings requires a cause. How can the matter that is necessary in existence require a cause? The very definiton of necessary existent is that it is not dependent on any thing and if it is requiring a cause then it isn't necessary in existence to begin with. This makes it merely contingent or possible in existence.
3) The uncreated or necessary matter was subject to change (re-arrangement). This means that a change of state took place within the existence of the eternal matter. Consider an example of a pancake maker.
If one observes a pancake maker change its state from “not making pancakes” to that of “making pancakes” then he must have moved from point A in time to point B in time. It is patently absurd to think that at point A in time he was both “not making pancakes” and “making pancakes.” How can one be in two mutually contradictory states at the same point in time? Likewise, it is absurd to think that the pancake maker is eternal or necessary in existence because it is subject to changes (beginnings). Any change of state is essentially a non-existence of previous state (Not making pancakes) and existence of a the new state (making pancakes). How does something that is necessary in existence entertains non-existence of a state at one point in time and entertains existence of another state at another point in time? Either the said "change" didn't take place or the existence of a thing which is subject to changes isn't necessary to begin with. It is merely possible.
4) The matter is said to be eternal. So it is impossible than any change could occur within the matter. Because by definition any change is a beginning. To claim that the "eternal" matter changed (on account of leading to existence the first event) then this would necessarily mean that infinity came to end or Something that had no beginning (always existent) has a beginning and this is a contradiction.
5) Last but not least, in attempt to confuse, or out of confusion some may ask: “What if the existence of matter is cyclical?” Our answer to this is that cycles are still one cycle one after another, so they are events. Some may also ask, in an attempt to confuse: “What if the matter is eternal in the sense that it transforms into one form or the other. It never gets destroyed and niether it is created?"

We say this leads to the absurdity that is "contingents without a first." What the atheist is trying to say is that the existence of the matter is cyclical i.e. It has continued to transform in one or another forms since eternity. This absurd from two point of views.
1) It is impossible that there are infinite number of changes (without a beginning or end) taking place within the matter since eternity past, in other words it is ABSURD to claim that a particular change in pre-existing matter can only take place after an infinite number of changes in the past have completed. It is absurd because infinity doesnot end.
Those who claim that the matter is merely shifting forms or transforming since eternity are in fact saying that it is a prerequisite for tomorrow to arrive that an infinite number of events first take place. This is impossible, because infinity cannot end. Clearly then, the number of events that precedes the particular change in the pre-existing matter MUST have a Limit i.e. a series of events before a series of events is an event, and what we have proven is that there must be an event with no prior event, regardless of the number of series. Now atheist may confuse by saying " rearrangements taking place in the eternal matter had a limit but the matter didn't" and this leads to the absurdity mentioned in (1) (2) (3) and (4). This proves without a doubt that holding onto the premises "The matter is Eternal and it changed or rearranged" and "The existence of matter is cyclical that is transforming since eternity past" leads to an absurdity, and therefore by rational necessity the MATTER must be Possible in existence/contingent.

Note: An atheist might say "According to current knowledge energy (which is what matter consists of) cannot be created nor destroyed. The energy that exists in this universe is, as far as we know, permanent: It doesn't change. Nothing of it can be destroyed, nor can it be created. The only thing that can happen is for the energy to change from one state to another, but the total amount is always preserved."

Response: What we have highlighted previously can no longer be contested by any emperical evidence, or scientific observation. Rather, if one presents anything along these lines to contest the universal application of the proposition, the reply will be simple: obviously, the most such an observation can show us is the lack of any "New Matter" being brought into existence within the universe . It does not solve the contradiction we highlighted just now i.e. Contingents without a first.
To claim that the law is talking about that matter or energy within the universe and calling it uncreated or necessary in existence, leads to the same absurdites highlighted previously. There must be an event that has no prior event inorder to remove this absurdity from the equation and what that means is accepting the fact that the matter came into existence (ex-nihilo) at some point.
Indeed, at this point, the opponent must refute our argument mentioned in the main article, and then present the scientific finding. He must do both in order to contest our premise. It is finally a failure to think logically, for how would a scientific experiment show with certainty that the existence of matter is cyclical, uncreated and merely shifting forms since eternity past when observing this would take an infinite amount of time? If the law is talking about "No new matter being brought into existence" then this is not a problem because then we can simply say it is either because Allah has not willed for it to exist, or because He has not willed for it to be discovered and similar is the case pertaining to its (matter's) destruction.
None of this has any bearing on the Kalam cosmological argument so we ask the atheist "What has he gained?"

“Therefore, this particular movement of my hand must have a cause. This conclusion from the previous false premises. The same goes for you other conclusions which you call premises”.

Until you admit the movement of the hand DID begin to exist (from prior non-existence) or in your terms “CONVERSION” of energy DID TAKE PLACE and this particular change (conversion of energy or movement) was non-existent before and then it came to existence, I don’t see any point conversing with you.

If however you do admit that movement took place or the conversion of energy took place, go back and try to understand the argument again. All you have done is built a straw-man and a red-herring. “How differently, things begin to exist” has no bearing on Kalam Cosmological Argument.

All it is stating is “Whatever begins to exist REQUIRE A CAUSE” and this is proven through “Law of contradiction.”
Anybody who denies this law is resorting to sophistry, we don’t entertain them. So next time, please include this in your answer that “ You accept the law of contradiction” and what that means is that it will no longer be contested by emperical observation but observation will be explained in the light of logical principles.

My advice:
Get some good books on Logic. Both classical or modern.
And please avoid DIY Atheist guides like a plaque.

P.S you asked Does “2” even exist?”
My question was do you attest the rational neccessity and truth of this (2+2=4)without resorting to observation? If your answer is "No, because they don’t exist (and therefore they can’t be observed), proves my point that you believe that "knowledge can only come through observation".
My point is we can affirm the truth of this without “reflection” and or further pondering (or feeling to the need to verify it in one way or the other). The fact that these cannot be observed is not a question and has no bearing on the truth of this premise (2+2=4). The question is do we affirm certain truths exist, without having the need to observe or better way to put it “Do we affirm the truth of this even when we know these don’t have acutal existence (2+2=4) ? Next time try to understand what has been written rather than re-directing the framework of the discussion.
It’s a bad habit to shift the frame-work of the discussion to something which wasn’t part of the original argument in the first place.

Atheist

Nobody doubts that the movement of an arm may be caused. But as I wrote this inappropriate analogy doesn’t prove that everything has a cause. What is in doubt is whether movement which is neither a thing, nor a creation can be compared with a universe.

“Whatever begins to exist REQUIRE A CAUSE”.
There are no known case of things beginning to exist except at the quantum scale, e.g. the spontaneous creation of particle and antiparticle pairs. We also know that there is no cause for this. Consequently your premise is flawed.

Reply:

“Nobody doubts that the movement of an arm may be caused. But as I wrote this inappropriate analogy doesn’t prove that everything has a cause. What is in doubt is whether movement which is neither a thing, nor a creation can be compared with a universe.“Whatever begins to exist REQUIRE A CAUSE”. There are no known case of things beginning to exist except at the quantum scale, e.g. the spontaneous creation of particle and antiparticle pairs. We also know that there is no cause for this. Consequently your premise is flawed.”
Until you accept the validity of “Law of contradiction”, there is no use talking to you. You are denying it vehemently in your post.
These are two statements:
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(2)Not everything that begins to exist has a cause.
We have shown through deductive argument why (2) is false.

You hold the second premise “Not everything that begins to exist has a cause” to be true based on “inaccurate conclusions drawn from A scientific observation".
All what was observed was: there was “no” observable cause seen that explain the way quantum particles come into existence. This has no bearing on Kalam argument because it doesnot advocate a contingent (observable cause) because it would again need of a cause ad infinitum (infinite regress).

Whenever something comes into existence or begins to exist, the following claims can be made about its existence.

1) It was necessary: Clearly this is self-contradictory because whatever begins to exist by definition cannot be said to be necessary, else it would have been existent since eternity past and moments ago we agreed that something began to exist.

2)It was impossible: Clearly this is self-contradictory because something began to exist. To say that it was impossible is to deny that something came into existence (began to exist) and moments ago we agreed that something began to exist.

3)It was possible: Since it wasn't necessary (else it would have been necessary since eternity past and it wouldn't have begun to exist) and it wasn't impossible (else it wouldn't have begun to exist), it must be merely possible in existence. What does possible in existence entail?
There was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would have been necessary) neither its nature required non-existence (else it would have been impossible). So the existence and non-existence are equal with respect to the very nature of this thing i.e intrinsic to itself. Equal in what sense? None is preponderant over the other.
Now when such a thing begins to exist from prior non-existence, it has to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over non-existence. You can't say this thing occured causelessly because that would lead to a contradiction. Please note we agreed that such a thing was a possibility and there was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would be necessary/eternal) and niether it required non-existence (else it would be impossible). Both existence and non-existence were equal. Now when you claim that this thing began to exit without a cause, you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence? (This absurdity is known as Preponerance without a preferror).
Based on this, you must hold its (2) opposite which is (1) as true according to the law of contradiction.

“But as I wrote this inappropriate analogy doesn’t prove that everything has a cause”.
Saying it was an appropriate analogy (finger being material) and movement (being rearrangement of that material or holding it to be immaterial ) is irrelevant to the Kalam argument listed above. Because no differentiation between material or immaterial (rearrangement of pre-existing material) is needed as far as requirement for its cause is concerned. And the Kalam argument just asserts that, with evidence.
This was done to divert the argument at hand. (Side track and a red-herring)

“Nobody doubts that the movement of an arm may be caused.”

Side track. I asked you something. Did this particular movement of my hand begin to exist? What i mean by “begin to exist” is “It was non-existent before” and then it became “existent”?
“There are no known case of things beginning to exist except at the quantum scale, e.g. the spontaneous creation of particle and antiparticle pairs. We also know that there is no cause for this. Consequently your premise is flawed.”
Everytime I mentioned this, you brought fluctuations in quantum mechanics to dismantle the premise “Everything that begins to exist must have a cause”.
The maximum quantum mechanics proves is “there was no observable cause”.

How does this affect the Kalam Cosmological Argument?
You are not realizing, that Kalam doesnot advocate a contingent (observable: read material cause) in the first place. So quantum mechanics doesnot stand in opposition to Kalam argument in anyway whatso ever. If you bring Quantum mechanics to dismantle the premise, we have an answer: “The max this observation shows is there is no observable cause for particles popping into existence. But are we propagating an observable cause in our argument? NO. All we are interested in, is that a “change” of state took place of those particles i.e. “Non-existence”> “existence”> “Non-existence”. And this requires a “cause” that is not contingent (observable). Therefore, the max this argument shows is that Allah has either not created a “correlation (observable cause)” for the “particles coming into existence or going into non-existence” OR “He has not decreed it (observable cause or correlating event) to be discovered” Since the necessary truth of the proposition has been proven through universal logical principles, you cannot bring any observation or lack of observation to refute this principle. In fact whatever you do bring will be explained in the light of this principle.
What you can do is to refute the argument given.
And this is something you haven’t even tried yet. In a subtle way, you have proven my point that you have zero respect for logical principles.

This appears to be a particular yet a peculiar case of “Mereological nihilism”

An atheist will usually tell you that he “lacks” belief in all deities due to lack of evidence. However upon further pondering you will realize that they believe in a number of absurdities. The following is not true for all atheists. However in my experience, they do believe in at least one of the absurdities listed below.

Something could come into existence from nothing without a cause. This is an absurdity known as preponderance without a preferrer.
The universe is Eternal (necessary existent) yet it changes all the time. This is an absurdity because something that is necessary in existence cannot change.
Something could be partly contingent and eternal at the same time. They say this while referring to the universe. This is yet another absurdity.
The believe in the possibility of contradictions as is evident from the points highlighted above.
Matter has been changing (undergoing transformation) since eternity past and this leads to the absurdity termed “contingents without a first.”
They believe in the possibility of infinite regress by claiming that the world is eternal.
They believe that they can only know something by observation/ induction. Yet this is a performative contradiction in their claim that knowledge can only come through observation. In response to their claim ask them “How do they know that by observation?” Their claim is essentially self-refuting.

Atheist:

“Something could come into existence from nothing without a cause. This is an absurdity ..”. No it’s an observation and deduction of Quantum Mechanics and pretty much undisputed.

“The universe is Eternal (necessary existent) yet it changes all the time.”. You are confusing lifetime (eternal) with immutability. By the same logic you disprove the existence of an eternal God for immutability implies the incapacity to think, because thinking implies reaching new conclusions / decisions.

You need to give an example.

The [sic] believe in the possibility of contradictions. Quantum Mechanics is full of apparent contradictions like Schrodinger's cat being both dead and alive at the same time.

“Matter has been changing (undergoing transformation) since eternity past and this leads to the absurdity”. Not so. Consider a universe which consisted of one solitary hydrogen atom. The position of the electron and proton would always be changing yet would endure for eternity.

See previous point.

“They believe that they can only know something by observation/ induction.”
No they don’t. They only know something by falsifying the alternatives. All the alternatives to observation / induction have turned out to be far less reliable. This is why scientists and engineers can produce reliable aircraft on demand but religious believers cannot produce flying horses.

Reply:

“With no claim to originality it is contradictory to propose that everything has a cause except the first cause. This is the fallacy of special pleading”.
Coming to the accusation of “special pleading” fallacy.

1)Everything that exists has a cause.
2) The first cause exists.
3) The first cause doesnot have a cause. (This is a Special pleading fallacy).

Did i claim (1), (2) or (3)?
Follow the links and go through them,one by one and find anything along these lines. You will not find them. In fact, the following blog post refutes the accusation of special pleading fallacy.

DEBUNKING COMMON ATHEISTS' ARGUMENTS AGAINST KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (PART II)
“Something could come into existence from nothing without a cause. This is an absurdity ..”.
“No it’s an observation and deduction of Quantum Mechanics and pretty much undisputed”.

I don't know how many times i have to explain this. You fail to wrap your mind around this. This stems primarily from your lack of knowledge of logical principles.

All what was observed was “there was no observable cause”.
Whenever something comes into existence or begins to exist, the following claims can be made about its existence.

1) It was necessary: Clearly this is self-contradictory because whatever begins to exist by definition cannot be said to be necessary, else it would have been existent since eternity past and moments ago we agreed that something began to exist.

2)It was impossible: Clearly this is self-contradictory because something began to exist. To say that it was impossible is to deny that something came into existence (began to exist) and moments ago we agreed that something began to exist.

3)It was possible: Since it wasn't necessary (else it would have been necessary since eternity past and it wouldn't have begun to exist) and it wasn't impossible (else it wouldn't have begun to exist), it must be merely possible in existence. What does possible in existence entail?
There was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would have been necessary) neither its nature required non-existence (else it would have been impossible). So the existence and non-existence are equal with respect to the very nature of this thing i.e intrinsic to itself. Equal in what sense? None is preponderant over the other.
Now when such a thing begins to exist from prior non-existence, it has to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over non-existence. You can't say this thing occured causelessly because that would lead to a contradiction. Please note we agreed that such a thing was a possibility and there was nothing in its nature that required existence (else it would be necessary/eternal) and niether it required non-existence (else it would be impossible). Both existence and non-existence were equal. Now when you claim that this thing began to exit without a cause, you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence? (This absurdity is known as Preponerance without a preferror).Note: The necessary truth of the proposition has been proven rationally. This can no longer be contested by any emperical evidence, or scientific observation. Rather, if one presents anything along these lines to contest the universal application of the proposition, the reply will be simple: obviously, the most such an observation can show us is the lack of an observable cause. It does not solve the contradiction we highlighted just now.
Indeed, at this point, the opponent must refute our argument mentioned in the main article, and then present the scientific finding. He must do both in order to contest our premise. Atheists usually present fluctuations in quantum mechanics as proof for their claim that "Not everything that begins to exist has a cause" to dispel the Kalam argument.

How does the findings in Quantum mechanics debunk this?
They donot because:
1)Kalam Argument doesnot advocate a contingent cause (observable cause).
2)Absence of a contingent cause (in a scientific finding such as quantum fluctuations) has no bearing on the premises of Kalam argument for the reason mentioned in (1).
3) The premise "Not everything that begins to exist must have a cause" or "Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’ has been proven to be false due to the absurdity "Now when you claim that the first event occured causlessly, you are making a contradiction because how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence?"
Based on the above, we can say that if the pattern of quarks truly have no observable correlating event that makes it predictable, and is thus labeled “random,” it is either because Allah has not willed for it to have a correlating event, or because He has not willed for it to be discovered.

“You are confusing lifetime (eternal) with immutability. By the same logic you disprove the existence of an eternal God for immutability implies the incapacity to think, because thinking implies reaching new conclusions / decisions”.
Definition of eternal:
1) Always existent.
2) Without a beginning or end.
3) Intrinsically necessary.
4)the mind absolutely doesnot accept its non-existence.
5) Uncreated.
6)It doesnot depend on an external cause for its existence.
1) To claim that a universe was necessary in existence (eternal or always existent) and then it changed (rearranged or entertained a beginning in existence) is contradiction of terms because how can the universe be necessary in existence (It's very nature requires it to exist) and possible in existence with respect to itself ( there is nothing in its nature that prefers non-existence and there is nothing in its nature that requires existence)?
2) Any change is essentially a beginning and all beginnings requires a cause (see above as to “why things that begin to exist require a cause).
How can the universe that is necessary in existence requires a cause? The very definiton of necessary existent is that it is not dependent on any thing and if it is requiring a cause then it isn't necessary in existence to begin with. This makes it merely contingent or possible in existence.
3) The uncreated or necessary universe was subject to change (re-arrangement). This means that a change of state took place within the existence of the eternal Universe. Consider an example of a pancake maker.
If one observes a pancake maker change its state from “not making pancakes” to that of “making pancakes” then he must have moved from point A in time to point B in time. It is patently absurd to think that at point A in time he was both “not making pancakes” and “making pancakes.” How can one be in two mutually contradictory states at the same point in time? Likewise, it is absurd to think that the pancake maker is eternal or necessary in existence because it is subject to changes (beginnings). Any change of state is essentially a non-existence of previous state (Not making pancakes) and existence of a the new state (making pancakes). How does something that is necessary in existence entertains non-existence of a state at one point in time and entertains existence of another state at another point in time? Either the said "change" didn't take place or the existence of a thing which is subject to changes isn't necessary to begin with. It is merely possible (contingent).
4) The Universe is said to be eternal. So it is impossible than any change could occur within the universe and this contradicts observed reality. Because by definition any change is a beginning. To claim that the "eternal" universe changed means Something that had no beginning (always existent) has a beginning and this is a contradiction.
5) Last but not least, in attempt to confuse, or out of confusion some may ask: “What if the existence of universe is cyclical?” Our answer to this is that cycles are still one cycle one after another, so they are events. Some may also ask, in an attempt to confuse: “What if the universe is eternal in the sense that it each universe leads to the existence of another since eternity past?We say this leads to the absurdity that is "contingents without a first."

This is absurd because:
1) It is impossible that there are infinite number of universe each leading up to the existence of another. It is absurd because by definiton infinity doesnot end.
2) Those who claim that there are infinite number of universes each leading upto the existence of the other are in fact saying that it is a prerequisite for tomorrow to arrive that an infinite number of events first take place. This is impossible, because infinity cannot end.
Clearly then, the number of events that precedes the existence of a universe MUST have a Limit (finite).
“By the same logic you disprove the existence of an eternal God for immutability implies the incapacity to think, because thinking implies reaching new conclusions / decisions”.The underlying hidden premises in his argument are:
1) He exists in time.
2) His attributes such as Will & Power are contingent attributes.
3) Since they are contingent attributes they "Begin to exist".
4) If He is not subject to changes, then he can't make new decisions.
5) He envisions an anthropomorphic description of a God denoted by "incapacity to think".

Had he bothered to read the argument, he wouldn't have said:“By the same logic you disprove the existence of an eternal God for immutability implies the incapacity to think, because thinking implies reaching new conclusions / decisions”.

The argument proves all the following points based on logical principles.
1) God is a necessarily existent being Existing free from time and space.
2) He is creator of Both time and space.
3) His Will and Power are an eternal attributes of His.
4) He is not subject to changes.
5) He doesnot pass through phases of Before and After, since He is free from time and place.
6) Had His existence been subject to changes, then since any change is essentially a beginning, it would require a cause. And it is intrinsically impossible for a necessary existent being to depend on a cause.
7) Had His existence been in time i.e. existing without a beginning or end, it would take infinite amount of events to be concluded before anything could ever begin to exist and this is absurd.
8) Had His existence been in time, then His existence in the next moment would be intrinsically possible (contingent) and not necessary and this is absurd.

“The [sic] believe in the possibility of contradictions.Quantum Mechanics is full of apparent contradictions like Schrodinger's cat being both dead and alive at the same time.”
There are “No” contradictions in what is being observed. If you hold that contradictions are possible, it is better for me to with-hold conversing with you. Denial of law of contradictions is denial of logical principles.
Don’t try to use science to violate this principle as well.
If he you can believe in the possibility of contradictions which are rationally absurd, a person holding belief (with no logical or observational proof) in pegasus is better than him. Far better than him.

Moreover, if you believe in the possibility of contradictions i will ask you to prove a part can be greater than the whole.
“Matter has been changing (undergoing transformation) since eternity past and this leads to the absurdity”.

You said “Not so”.

The example that you have given below (see below) is irrelavant to this absurdity called “contingents without a first”. I think what you meant was that you do not entertain this absurdity (contingents without a first) by giving “another example” which does not entertain this absurdity. Fair enough! However, do correct me if i am wrong in making this assumption about you!
"Consider a universe which consisted of one solitary hydrogen atom. The position of the electron and proton would always be changing yet would endure for eternity".

A universe consisting of one solitary atom which is eternal? Is that right?
Go above and read closely what has been mentioned above pertaining to the universe that is eternal and is subject to changes. I hope you get it this time.
We reject the notion that it is eternal (universe with one solitary atom). Why?
Because nothing would ever come into existence. And this contradicts observed reality.
If it was assumed that it was an eternal (universe with one solitary hydrogen atom) , you must admit everything or something was brought into existence FROM it, rather than BY it.
A) If it was From it.
This is impossible. Because the (universe with one solitary atom) is said to be eternal. So it is impossible than any change could in occur it. Because by definition, any change is essentially a beginning. To claim that the "eternal" (universe with solitary atom) changed (on account of leading to existence of anything) then this would necessarily mean that infinity (without a beginning or end) came to end or something that had no beginning (always existent or existent since eternity past) has a beginning and this is a contradiction. How can something be neccessarily existent/ eternal and possible in existence at the same time?
How can something that is necessarily existent rely on a external cause (since a change is essentially a beginning) for entertaining a particular change in its existence?
How can something that is necessarily existent entertain a non-existence of previous state in its existence and entertain an existence of a new state. When the definition of necessary existence is that the mind absolutely doesnot accept its non-existence?
B)In an attempt to confuse layman, atheist may come up with an absurdity i.e contingents without a first. He tries to prove that the universe (with solitary atom) itself is contingent but it is subject to changes since eternity. The reason why this is absurd is because if it is claimed that a contingent matter has been subject to changes since eternity past then any change by definition would fail to exist because it would require infinite changes in the past to be completed before it and that is absurd. Because infinity doesnot end. It is a contradiction of terms. Another way to highlight this absurdity is:
Prearangment in the pre-existing matter caused by Prearrangement in the pre-existing matter caused by Prearrangement in the pre-existing matter (ad infinitum).
b) If it was By it.
This is impossible because an Eternal (universe with a solitary atom) is deemed lifeless, unintelligent, powerless by you. How can anything be brought into existence when you hold the eternal matter to be lifeless and unintelligent?
If you deny both “from it” and “by it” then all that should have been there would be a universe with a hydrogen atom. Nothing else would have come into existence. NOTHING. And this contradicts observed reality.

“They believe that they can only know something by observation/ induction.”

You said "No they don’t".

Please say “I don’t” . Don’t say “they don’t” Only speak for yourself from now on. Don’t give guarantee for others. Go through the comment section of my answers on Quora by clicking my profile to see what i am talking about. They all call themselves atheists as well who do hold this to be true (they can only know something by observation/ induction). Your denial of this contradicts observed reality. “I think my comments below 1–7 have already demolished your defence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument”.Do you really think you demolished anything?

Your comments have adequately shown why you have 0 idea of Kalam cosmological argument. But i should give you thumbs up that at least you tried to write a refutation, unlike many others out there.
You said “I suggest you read The Kalam Cosmological Argument by Michael Martin”.I am guessing you wrote all of this from there? If you did, i don’t think there’s any need to read it. Moreover, since the logic used is seriously flawed to begin with (entertaining contradictions). i do recommend to give a serious thought to reading classical and modern logic.
If you didn’t write from that book you mentioned, then please do so in your next post. We will see how Martin stands tall in the face of a logical principles.
“For your existence to occur, there were infinite number of events before it." And this is an impossibility because infinity does not end.>> This is a non sequitur. By the same logic you could “prove” that a specific point in a line cannot exist because the line contains an infinite number of points”.
Is the distance between 0 and 1 (end)points an infinite distance? No. Sure, you can imaginarily assume mathematically that the fractions between them are infinite, but these fractions are not real, they are imaginary and do not exist in the outside world. If you were to divide then in a series 1/2, 1/4. 1/8, etc. this is imagined as an infinite string, but these fractions do not exist, nor does the series. It is an imaginary exercise. In my argument I am speaking of real events that happened in the past leading upto my existence.
Let me give you a simpler example so that you can wrap your mind around this.
In mathematics we calculate “ 2balls –5balls = -3 balls” Do -3 balls have any real existence in the real world?

When you say that the past has infinitely (without a beginning or end) many events, then you are saying that the events of the past have not completed, and never will. This is self-contradictory, because what has not completed is not in the past.
And if it has completed then it is not infinite (without a beginning or end) to begin with. it is a contradiction of terms.

What is being said here is, we can observe the current moment in time, and if there have been infinite moments of time that have existed before the current moment, then it is rationally impossible i.e. rationally absurd, that these moments of time stretch back to an infinite number. It is rationally necessary for time to have had a beginning.

Atheist:

I’m sorry but your ignorance of logic, mathematics and how to conduct respectful discussion has reached the limits of my patience. For the last time I will answer your tedious and illogical post.

“Moreover, since your logic is seriously flawed, i do recommend to give a serious throught [sic] to reading classical and modern logic.”

Strange that you cannot substantiate a single flaw but continue with ad hominem attacks and accusations of lies.

Is the distance between 0 and 1 (end)points an infinite distance?

No. But there are an infinite number of points to traverse. The fact you can traverse the infinite demolishes your thesis that infinity is an absurdity. Infinite Regress

“ 2balls –5balls = -3 balls” Do -3 balls have any real existence in the real world?”Yes. Think of p type semiconductors and “holes”

“We reject the notion that it is eternal (universe with on solitary atom).Why? Because nothing would come into existence.
And this contradicts observed reality. (see below)”. Not so. The illustration of the eternal atom doesn’t require anything to “come into existence”. This is why I made the point. Consequently there is no contradiction and again your logic is demonstrated as fallacious. With the same fallacious reasoning we could reject any eternal Creator! The Creator would never come into existence!

“infinity does not end. It is a contradiction of terms.”

Counter example (already given): a line can begin and / or end and yet consists of an infinite number of points. The infinite set of integers begins but does not end. You do not understand the properties of infinities and singularities. Your definitions of “infinite” and “eternal” are in contradiction of the generally accepted meanings of these terms.

“what has not completed is not in the past”

Counter example: History never completes and yet is always in the past. You are just playing with words. Equivocation. Irrelevance. Red herring.

“Your comments have adequately shown why you have 0 idea of Kalam cosmological argument.”Strange then, that you have no successful argument to refute my critique (nor anybody else’s)

“ In my argument I am speaking of real events that happened in the past leading up to my existence.”

No you are not. You are imagining, with neither evidence nor reason, that everything has causes and that there was a first cause, and that first cause created the universe according to a blueprint, and to follow the blueprint required will and intelligence, and therefore Allah was that will and intelligence. We could equally pretend that any arbitrary imaginary deities did the same. There is no evidence for any creation, blueprint, nor will, nor intelligence at any stage of the universe. It’s superstition.

“Did i claim (1), (2) or (3)? Did i?"
“. Yes. At Foundations Of Religion- Mathematical Proof you write, “If one accepts Premise A, then one must also accept that the series of events in premise B must have a beginning.”

“He tries to prove that the universe (with solitary atom) itself is contingent but it is subject to changes since eternity.”

Straw man arguments. I simply demonstrate by concrete example, that eternal universes can be consistent, without first causes. Of course many more complicated eternal universes could also exist.

“It is rationally necessary for time to have had a beginning.”But you don’t justify this empty assertion which I have in any case already refuted. Nevertheless near a singularity, it may be necessary to redefine the meaning of “time”. Just as an object appears to take forever to fall into a black hole, to an outside observer, the explosion of a white hole also takes forever. But if we are inside the white hole (the Big Bang) our perceptions of time and space are depend on our position (therefore contradictory). This is illustrates yet another example of why and how your Law of Contradiction does not apply. The problem here is that your concept of infinity, and Kalam’s, is based on anachronistic classical ideas.

“For your existence to occur, there were infinite number of events before it." And this is an impossibility because infinity does not end.

This is a non sequitur as I show in point 5 in this post. (quoted from your Argument For The Existence Of God).

Let’s take a concrete example. How many events are there in the orbital of an electron around an atom? Regardless of whether the orbital distance is finite or infinite, the number of points is infinite. We can say there are an infinite number of “events”. each one “causing” a successor. Your argument is demolished by the counter example of the existence of atoms. The eternal atom model of the universe has no beginning but continuously changes.

“How can the first event be brought into existence when you hold the eternal matter to be lifeless and unintelligent?”

Already answered. Just as the vacuum can decay into an event, so can an empty universe. Where is intelligence required? We don’t need first causes, but one is to hand if necessary.

Something could come into existence from nothing without a cause.This is an absurdity known as preponderance without a preferrer [sic].

No it is not. I think you have invented this term yourself.

“a part can be greater than the whole. Until you do that. Go waste your time elsewhere.”.

This is easy to demonstrate. Thorium hydride contains twice the density of hydrogen as solid hydrogen. Most neutral atoms weigh less than their constituent neutrons and protons. Would you kindly restrict yourself the the subject under discussion?

“When you say that the past has infinitely (without a beginning or end) many events, then you are saying that the events of the past have not completed, and never will.”

Not only that is a strawman argument but the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. Even if it were true, it would have no bearing on the validity of an infinitely old universe. Whether or not events end as you put it is irrelevant, because subsequent events have no effect on prior ones.

BTW, in my refutation of your 7 points, I numbered my refutations 1..7.

“In my argument I am speaking of real events that happened in the past leading upto my existence.”. But you were supposed to be refuting my argument. We do not know what these “real events” were, so this kind of argument is purely conjecture. Another conjecture of yours, not supported by physics, is that everything has a cause. What is quite clear is that the inferences you make about so called absurdities are refuted by counter example. The feasibility of counter example universes (solitary atom) contradicts your assertion that a universe cannot be eternal. I think I have now said something like this at least 3 times.

Simply asserting that something is rationally impossible, rationally absurd, rationally necessary is not an argument. If you want to claim to be rational, you need to demonstrate the fact, and in particular, you need to answer the counter examples.

“How can the universe that is necessary in existence requires a cause?”. What makes you think the universe is necessary? What makes you think anything at all is necessary? You are just making assumptions. Wiser men than I have suggested that the Big Bang was an exploding white hole which is not eternal, and requires no first cause. But instead of referring to modern cosmological ideas, you obsess over Kalam’s medieval cosmology.

Reply:

No. But there are an infinite number of points to traverse. The fact you can traverse the infinite demolishes your thesis that infinity is an absurdity.

Is the distance between 0 and 1 (end)points an infinite distance? No. Sure, you can imaginarily assume mathematically that the fractions between them are infinite, but these fractions are not real, they are imaginary and do not exist in the outside world. If you were to divide then in a series 1/2, 1/4. 1/8, etc. this is imagined as an infinite string, but these fractions do not exist, nor does the series. It is an imaginary exercise. In my argument I am speaking of real events that happened in the past leading upto my existence.

He assumes since he has traversed a finite distance and he has also traversed infinity (i.e. infinity came to an end). Even by his own admission "a line can begin and / or end and yet consists of an infinite number of points. The infinite set of integers begins but does not end".

On one hand he says "the infinite set of integers begins but doesnot end" and on the other hand, he is apparantly trying to debunk my claim "infinity cannot end". It is his position that he traversed infinite points and at the same time he holds the "infinite set of integers begins but doesnot end."

Q1)Doesn't traversing infinite points entail "infinity came to an end"?

Q2)Doesn't the claim "The fact you can traverse the infinite" entails that "infinity came to an end"?

Q3)Isn't he trying to refute my claim that "infinity comes to an end is a contradiction of terms"?
Q4)If it is his position that "infinite set of integers begins but doesnot end" what is he trying to refute in the first place? ( This is a self-refuting argument)

I asked him more questions as well.
Q1) Tell me if you travelled a distance of 5 feet, will you claim that you traversed an infinite distance?

Q2) Is 5 feet an infinite distance according to you?

Q3)
a.Define infinity.

b. Is it something without a beginning or end?

c.Is it something with a beginning but no end?

Q4) Can traversing an infinite distance ever come to completion?

Q5) Define finite. Is it something with a beginning and an end?

This is what happens when the desire to refute the opponents arguments is greater than the will to understand the opponent's arguments. This is only embarassing for him. Not for anybody else.

“ 2balls –5balls = -3 balls” Do -3 balls have any real existence in the real world?”Yes. Think of p type semiconductors and “holes”

The following was the context of our conversation:

Let me give you a simpler example so that you can wrap your mind around this.In mathematics we calculate “ 2balls –5balls = -3 balls” Do -3 balls have any real existence in the real world?The following is his response:"Yes. Think of p type semiconductors and “holes”"

Yet in his previous replies he states "Does “2” even exist?"

On one hand, he admits the existence of -3 number of balls in the form of "p type semiconductors" and "holes" and the on the other hand he asks me "Does "2" even exist?Is "p-type semiconductors and holes" any true representation of "-3 number of balls" in any form whatsoever? (An obvious Red-herring).

Moreover:
Since you have observed their real existence. What is the difference between -3 balls and 3 balls? If you resorted to mathematics your post will be deleted, there and then. If someone claims “I have -3 number of balls” and the other person claims “I have 3 number of balls” what is the difference between them?
"what has not completed is not in the past”.
Counter example: History never completes and yet is always in the past. You are just playing with words. Equivocation. Irrelevance. Red herring.

“We reject the notion that it is eternal (universe with on solitary atom). Why? Because nothing would come into existence. And this contradicts observed reality."

Let's get back to the original context in which it was said.
When you say that the past has infinitely (without a beginning or end) many events, then you are saying that the events of the past have not completed, and never will. This is self-contradictory, because what has not completed is not in the past. And if it has completed then it is not infinite (without a beginning or end) to begin with. it is a contradiction of terms.

What is being said here is, we can observe the current moment in time, and if there have been infinite moments of time that have existed before the current moment, then it is rationally impossible i.e. rationally absurd, that these moments of time stretch back to an infinite number. It is rationally necessary for time to have had a beginning.

What i am trying to say here is, if there are infinite (without a beginning and without an end) events in the past then they can never be completed and the present moment would never arrive. Because by definition "infinity" cannot be concluded or completed. These are real events that we are talking about and not some mathematical halves.

What do we mean by real events:

Infinite regress: Saying that infinite (without a beginning and end) number of past events must be concluded before any thing leaves the realm of existence leads to infinite regress. Because by definition infinity does not end. (This is what the argument is postulating). If it ends then it is a contradiction of terms. A violation of law of contradiction. This is what the argument is proving as impossible.

What is being said here is if someone deems "Infinite regress" to be possible, then he is essentially stating that there are infinite (without a beginning and without an end) number of events in the past prior to the present moment and we are proving this is intrinsically impossible. These events are not representation of mathematical halves.

They are "real" events.

This is his rebuttal:
History never completes and yet is always in the past. You are just playing with words. (A red-herring & Avoiding the issue)
I don't think this is even worth responding to. Yet he accuses me of "playing with words (Straw-man)" He seems to have poor understanding of "logical principles." He also seems to think that bringing a counter example (no matter how absurd it is) will debunk the opponent's position when he has no idea how to approach it with "logical syllogisms".

“ In my argument I am speaking of real events that happened in the past leading up to my existence.”

No you are not. You are imagining, with neither evidence nor reason, that everything has causes and that there was a first cause, and that first cause created the universe according to a blueprint, and to follow the blueprint required will and intelligence, and therefore Allah was that will and intelligence. We could equally pretend that any arbitrary imaginary deities did the same. There is no evidence for any creation, blueprint, nor will, nor intelligence at any stage of the universe. It’s superstition."
On one hand he is refuting my claim "infinite regress is impossible"

Fair enough. On the other hand he is denying the existence of real events in the past. Then he seems to equate it with "causes" and tries to insert "a first cause" into the discussion which was never part of the context. (The is a classical red-herring, a straw-man argument and missing the point)

But you were supposed to be refuting my argument. We do not know what these “real events” were, so this kind of argument is purely conjecture. Another conjecture of yours, not supported by physics, is that everything has a cause. What is quite clear is that the inferences you make about so called absurdities are refuted by counter example. The feasibility of counter example universes (solitary atom) contradicts your assertion that a universe cannot be eternal.
The original context of the conversation:

1) Infinite regress is possible: then there are infinite number of events (without a beginning or end) leading upto the present moment.
2) Infinite regress is not (possible): there cannot be infinite number of events (without a beginning or end) leading upto the present moment as it is a contradiction of terms. (This is my position that he is refuting.)

It can't be both of them at the same time, it can't be niether of them.
He goes into a different trance "talking about causes and what not" and "we don't know what these real events are" (an obvious "missing the point" and a "red-herring"). Is my argument even remotely guessing "what" those events are?

He states "We could equally pretend that any arbitrary imaginary deities did the same. There is no evidence for any creation, blueprint, nor will, nor intelligence at any stage of the universe. It’s superstition".
The evidences are many and have stood the test of time. Your failure to understand logical principles and their rules does not mean the evidence is flawed. It speaks of your lack of knowledge and ability to comprehend such matters.

“With no claim to originality it is contradictory to propose that everything has a cause except the first cause. This is the fallacy of special pleading”.
When i debunked this claim-
Coming to your accusation of “special pleading” fallacy1)Everything that exists has a cause.
2)The first cause exists.
3)The first cause doesnot have a cause. (This is a Special pleading fallacy).“Did i claim (1), (2) or (3)? Did i?

He jumps to another argument and states :
“ Yes. At Foundations Of Religion- Mathematical Proof you write, “If one accepts Premise A, then one must also accept that the series of events in premise B must have a beginning.”

What can be said about a person who does this? If you really think the argument commits "special pleading fallacy" at the very least illustrate it in logical syllogisms.
"The illustration of the eternal atom doesn’t require anything to “come into existence”. This is why I made the point. Consequently there is no contradiction and again your logic is demonstrated as fallacious. With the same fallacious reasoning we could reject any eternal Creator! The Creator would never come into existence!"

Let's go back to the original context:

1) Eternal (Universe with a solitary atom) exists.
2) It cannot be subject to any changes since it is eternal.
3)It is unintelligent, powerless, lifeless.
4) Nothing would come into existence "By" it and "From" it.
5) "By it" presupposes intelligence, power, life and will.
6) "From it" entails change in the eternal Universe with a solitary atom which is intrinsically impossible.
7) Therefore, nothing would ever come into existence "From" it and "By" it. The only thing that will ever and always exist would be an Eternal universe with a solitary atom. The skies, rivers, Trees, plants, humans, crops, animals and or any other contingent being would fail to enter the realm of existence.

This is what he has to say:

1)The illustration of the eternal atom doesn’t require anything to “come into existence".
2) Consequently there is no contradiction and again your logic is demonstrated as fallacious.
3) With the same fallacious reasoning we could reject any eternal Creator! The Creator would never come into existence!
He doesn't even know what the conversation is about. Yet he claims to debunk Kalam cosmological argument!

How is his argument even relevant to my argument?

Debunking his argument:

Premise 1: Although an eternal atom is always existent or existent since eternity past, the question was since it is unintelligent, powerless and lifeless it cannot create anything and since it is eternal, it cannot be subject to any changes and therefore by rational necessity nothing would come into existence from it. By Nothing we mean "The skies, rivers, Trees, plants, humans, crops, animals and or any other contingent being would fail to enter the realm of existence". The only thing that will be in existent would be an eternal "universe with a solitary atom".

Premise 2: Claims without evidence are rejected without evidence. He uses the word fallicious without any proof of where the fallacy lies.

Premise 3: He mistakenly assumes I am asking about where did the "eternal Universe with the solitary atom" came from?
Is that what i am asking?What i am saying is, that if his assumption is held to be true, then all that would be in existence, will be an "eternal universe with a solitary atom" and nothing else. And this contradicts observed reality.

I simply demonstrate by concrete example, that eternal universes can be consistent, without first causes. Of course many more complicated eternal universes could also exist.

What we have shown is without an iota of doubt why an "eternal universe with a solitary atom" couldn't exist. It is intrinsically impossible. Yet he has the audacity to bring the possibility of "many more complicated eternal universes." (Missing the point)

Just as an object appears to take forever to fall into a black hole, to an outside observer, the explosion of a white hole also takes forever. But if we are inside the white hole (the Big Bang) our perceptions of time and space are depend on our position (therefore contradictory).

This illustrates yet another example of why and how your Law of Contradiction does not apply.He gives a bunch of gibberish talk to attack the veracity of law of contradiction. Anybody who doubts the law of contradiction, is resorting to sophistry and clearly he is a master at it. His claims are a clear proof of this.
Let’s take a concrete example. How many events are there in the orbital of an electron around an atom? Regardless of whether the orbital distance is finite or infinite, the number of points is infinite. We can say there are an infinite number of “events”. each one “causing” a successor. Your argument is demolished by the counter example of the existence of atoms. The eternal atom model of the universe has no beginning but continuously changes.

Something could come into existence from nothing without a cause.This is an absurdity known as preponderance without a preferrer [sic]. No it is not. I think you have invented this term yourself.

The absurdity has been highlighted quite a number of times already. There is no need to write it again.
This is his principle " i wouldn't refute the argument" i would raise a bunch of side-tracks or red-herrings. He often brings fluctuations in quantum mechanics as a proof for why things can begin to exist without a cause. What he forgets is "The necessary truth of the proposition has been proven rationally.This can no longer be contested by any emperical evidence, or scientific observation. Rather, if one presents anything along these lines to contest the universal application of the proposition, the reply will be simple: obviously, the most such an observation can show us is the lack of an observable cause. It does not solve the contradiction we highlighted just now". Absence of observable cause is not a problem of Kalam cosmological argument because it doesnot advocate a contingent (observable) cause in the first place.

“a part can be greater than the whole. Until you do that. Go waste your time elsewhere.”.

"This is easy to demonstrate. Thorium hydride contains twice the density of hydrogen as solid hydrogen. Most neutral atoms weigh less than their constituent neutrons and protons. Would you kindly restrict yourself the the subject under discussion?"

He has no idea what this principle is about. Since he has no respect for the law of contradiction, he would go at great lengths to violate it, not knowing that it is making him look bad.
He states "thorium hydride" has twice the density of hydrogen or solid hydrogen?
What? How is this relevant to what i am stating?
Consider an example of a bottle with a cap.
Q1) Is a part (cap) greater than the whole (same bottle plus the same cap)?
Q2) Is thorium (from thorium hydride) greater than the whole (thorium hydride)?
Q3) Is hydride (from thorium hydride) greater than the whole (thorium hydride)?
Q4) Is neutron (from the same atom) greater than whole (same Atom with both protons and neutrons)?
Q5)Is proton (from the same atom) greater than the whole (same Atom with both protons and neurtons)?
Q6) Is a tyre (from the same car) greater than the whole (same car with the all of its tyres)?
Q7) Is part (bottle without a cap) greater than the whole (bottle plus a cap)?

(1) What makes you think the universe is necessary? What makes you think anything at all is necessary? And then he states:
(2)The eternal atom model of the universe has no beginning but continuously changes.

He seems to be refuting the idea of universe being is "necessary" and yet at the same time violating law of contradiction by asserting "Eternal model of the universe has no beginning but continually changes"
Definiton of necessary existence : "Eternal, without a beginning or end, existent since eternity past".

Debunking Atheism

Search This Blog