Home
So I heard of the Kalam creation argument today and I have to say it's mind-bogglingly fucktarded. Let's see if you can spot why.
All things that begin to exist have a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This is used to explain creationism, or as those fuckwads now call it "Intelligent Design". Let me point out why this "logic" is bullshit.
It's an attempt at modus ponens which takes the form of:
If P, then Q
P.
Therefore Q
Example:
If it rains, then it will be wet
It rains
Therefore it will be wet
But Kalam takes THREE premises, which is not allowed in deductive logic.
"everything that begins to exist" = P
"has a cause" = Q
"the universe" = R
If P, then Q
R&P.
Therefore, R&Q.
If <everything that begins to exist> then <has a cause>
<the universe> and <begins to exist>
Therefore, <the universe> and <has a cause>
BULLSHIT. Three premises automatically disqualify this. Furthermore it uses the fallacy Guilt by Association. Just because Q is a consequence of P does not mean that by associating R with P you can automatically associate R with Q. Patty and Quincy are friends. Roger and Patty are friends. It's stupid to assume Roger and Quincy must then also be friends.
Furthermore, it begs the question TWICE. It takes the conclusion as the premise, fucking twice.
P is never proven. Everything that begins to exist (nothing proves everything begins to exist and doesn't simply exist for eternity)
Q was never proven. Has a cause. It's simply assumed has a cause. It just makes the fucking claim that P leads to Q, and never actually proves it. It just wants you to accept that on good faith. And yet we have reason to believe causality didn't exist before the universe, so SHUT THE FUCK UP KALAMISTS.
All things that begin to exist have a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This is used to explain creationism, or as those fuckwads now call it "Intelligent Design". Let me point out why this "logic" is bullshit.
It's an attempt at modus ponens which takes the form of:
If P, then Q
P.
Therefore Q
Example:
If it rains, then it will be wet
It rains
Therefore it will be wet
But Kalam takes THREE premises, which is not allowed in deductive logic.
"everything that begins to exist" = P
"has a cause" = Q
"the universe" = R
If P, then Q
R&P.
Therefore, R&Q.
If <everything that begins to exist> then <has a cause>
<the universe> and <begins to exist>
Therefore, <the universe> and <has a cause>
BULLSHIT. Three premises automatically disqualify this. Furthermore it uses the fallacy Guilt by Association. Just because Q is a consequence of P does not mean that by associating R with P you can automatically associate R with Q. Patty and Quincy are friends. Roger and Patty are friends. It's stupid to assume Roger and Quincy must then also be friends.
Furthermore, it begs the question TWICE. It takes the conclusion as the premise, fucking twice.
P is never proven. Everything that begins to exist (nothing proves everything begins to exist and doesn't simply exist for eternity)
Q was never proven. Has a cause. It's simply assumed has a cause. It just makes the fucking claim that P leads to Q, and never actually proves it. It just wants you to accept that on good faith. And yet we have reason to believe causality didn't exist before the universe, so SHUT THE FUCK UP KALAMISTS.
