Responses to the refutation of the Kalam Cosmological argument

If you haven’t read the original article yet, then here is the link.

The response to my article:
Your premise is a very simple misconception that many atheists make an appeal to: that God can be “proven” or “disproven” within science or logic. No. The mere concept of “God” is “beyond reason”, as in, “transcendental” — a priori or “beyond experience”(Read Kant if you want to know more, “The Critique of Pure Reason”). This means that any experience linked to God that attempts to establish universal fact is irrelevant, whether be it someone saw God and attempts to prove it, or someone attempts to disprove God through any “evidence” — such “evidence” is always irrelevant in terms of transcendental subjects — IF God can become a “subject” in the first place(“Infinity” cannot be “broken up”, as in, if it is broken up and not consisting of the observer, it is then limited by all that isn’t within it). Thus, your argument based on physics for “a beginning” is in fact, also irrelevant. If we get something from nothing, then nothing is God. In fact “Nothing is God” is one of the interpretations of phenomenology. Read Heidegger’s writings on “nicht”(nothing) if you are interested. Seminal lecture “What is metaphysics?” and book “Being and Time” covers some of it.

The beginning or no beginning question lies within the range of the Kantian antinomy. Again, see “The Critique of Pure Reason”. Although it is a very long book, but I suggest you read some relevant things on it before actually making conclusions on such topics. Nothing you have said here is anything new, and are mostly considered “outdated” in the realm of philosophy.
Response by: Richard Sheen

My response:
Hello Richard, thanks for giving your opinion on my article. Let’s cross check the points you have made.

“Your premise is a very simple misconception that many atheists make an appeal to: that God can be “proven” or “disproven” within science or logic.No. The mere concept of “God” is “beyond reason”, as in, “transcendental” — a priori or “beyond experience”(Read Kant if you want to know more, “The Critique of Pure Reason”). This means that any experience linked to God that attempts to establish universal fact is irrelevant, whether be it someone saw God and attempts to prove it, or someone attempts to disprove God through any “evidence” — such “evidence” is always irrelevant in terms of transcendental subjects — IF God can become a “subject” in the first place(“Infinity” cannot be “broken up”, as in, if it is broken up and not consisting of the observer, it is then limited by all that isn’t within it).”
I completely agree that existence of God can’t be ‘disproven’ by science. Because proving a negative is impossible. This is true in every case. You cannot disprove anything(at least scientifically or empirically). This includes everything on which we both don’t believe in, which are, in fact, infinite. So disproving anything doesn’t come into the picture.
And probably you will be surprised by reading that I even agree that the existence of God cannot be ‘proven’ either. Scientific theories cannot be proven either. If anything is ‘proven'(in a strong sense), then it goes beyond all doubts. But keep in mind, ‘something has evidence for it’ doesn’t mean ‘something is proven’. The only field where things can be literally ‘proven’ is mathematics. Two plus two equals to four, it is a universal truth. Another example would be the Pythagorean theorem(the word ‘theorem’ technically means a proven mathematical conjecture), you will be wasting your time if you try to test all types of triangles to see if any of them falsifies Pythagorean theorem, it is literally beyond all doubts.
But when we come to the big bang theory or the heliocentric model of the solar system, they can’t be proven, as, say, the four color theorem can be.

Then what can we do? What scientists do is that they try to falsify a theory by varied and repeated experimentation and observation and they show how hard they tried. Those experimentations and observations which fail to falsify the theory, in fact agrees with it, are counted as the evidences for the theory.I will like to quote Dr. William Lane Craig here, “If Y’s presence or truthness can liken the possibility of X, then Y can be counted as an evidence for X”.

So, when I will be asking for the evidence for God, I hope you will understand what I mean by it. According to theism, God’s existence highly affects our Universe. So, if God is supernatural, transcendental and beyond logic, his effects on the universe will still be perceived as ‘natural’ by us. Therefore, all you have to do is to collect some note of the phenomenons in our universe which cannot be explained without stating that God exists, it is as simple as that. This is the attempt this Kalam Cosmological argument is making. Saying that God created the universe, without proving it(which is impossible as I mentioned), must imply that it is admitting that the existence of our universe cannot be explained without stating that God exists. And I disagree with that, I think it can be explained without making the assumption that God exists. And I have done it.

“Thus, your argument based on physics for “a beginning” is in fact, also irrelevant. If we get something from nothing, then nothing is God. In fact “Nothing is God” is one of the interpretations of phenomenology”

If you say ‘nothing is God’, then it is also fair to say that ‘God doesn’t exist’. Because ‘nothing’ is a form of non existence. If we assert that ‘Nothing is God’ or ‘God is nothing’, then the conclusion based on the definition of ‘nothing’, becomes that God doesn’t exist. From this point of view both atheism and theism gets to the same side, in fact, both technically agree with each other. Then, a position of a theist is by no means better than the position of an atheist. Therefore, the argument is redundant.

I don’t know if my responses are outdated as well, but I hope it’s not.

Thanks for reading.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Responses to the refutation of the Kalam Cosmological argument

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s