Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Jan 11, 2016.

?

Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument convince you that God exists?

  1. Yes.

    1 vote(s)
    3.7%
  2. No.

    25 vote(s)
    92.6%
  3. I'm not sure that I properly understand the argument.

    1 vote(s)
    3.7%
  4. No opinion or would rather not answer.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    You all believe in God you just don't know it yet...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    You believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, you just don't know it yet.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    That is the dumbest thing I've read today. Bravo.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    I feel good right now...Thank the lord and all the blessings He has bestowed upon me.
     
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    So why would some omnipotent being need to create humans/anything?

    Is "God" being "He" an indication of some dependence?
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2016
  9. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    I don't know I am not God when you see God make sure you ask Him. But if I were to guess I would assume God is an artist since He is a creator. Artist love to create things and they love the things they create it gives them joy. So like parents make children to love God may have just created the universe and us just so He can upsess about us like we would our own children. We have all experienced a disfunctional relationship so I would assume it would be necessary to have a perfect or close to perfect character to build a healthy relationship. God is the role model we need to model ourself from because all other examples or simply animal, and who wants to devolve backwards into an animal again, after we have surpassed that point of evolution??
    No it's just generally assumed that God is a He because of how humans learned about God. Kinda like that's what's commonly excepted but no one truly knows for sure "only God knows".

    But if God was a women or a man it would make no difference to me personally, plus I love women and mostly would rather this planet to be filled with women. I think this planet would run a lot better if it was 90 percent women and 10 percent men. So if God was a woman that would be great then I could marry God if I was worthy lol.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2016
  10. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    I would argue with the other two commenters but I could see that you cannot see who you truly are but if you try really hard maybe you will.
     
  11. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    God is the judge what I say or anyone else for that matter says does not matter only His judgement counts.
     
  12. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    So, you are a troll.
     
  13. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    Ok still got some time... So as you say I am a troll so just put me on ignore then you should know this by now I answer in a way I believe is true based on how I see things you don't have to listen to me as I stated above "I am not God" everyone describing God is just speculating. Only God will give you the final answers. If what you want to do is pick a fight try someone else I am not here to stimulate your negative emotions. Either converse with me in genuine manner or don't converse with me, we will always make mistakes that's the beauty in it all this is how we know we are only a creation. You obviously don't belive in God and that's fine it's your choice. I am not here to take that option away from you.

    So if you think am trolling do yourself a favor please do not respond.
     
  14. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    Btw why do you ask questions about God to people that obviously believe in God only to get an answear that you don't like? Do you think this will change, no one is forcing you to believe in God it's just a disscusion about individuals point of view. Actually now I will be part of this discussion from time to time so I hope you can handle reading what I have to say if you don't put me on ignore else it would be you or anyone else whining about my opinions, as usual.
     
  15. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    Any ways say something interesting and stop boring me...ttyl
     
  16. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    So did God create the cosmos yet is not part of it?

    Can you say we understand anything outside the cosmos?
     
  17. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    So if you created a simulation of a universe but your nature was fundamentally different from that universe you created, would you be part of that universe you created? But if you wanted to be part of it you would write into existence a program that is an avatar describing an estimation of your superior functional abilities as creator "Prime".

    This is an observer to observer dependant position of view.
     
  18. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Damn you found me out!.
     
  19. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Done!
     
  20. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    "I am wondering, why are you here?"-Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back

     
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    And you're such a charitable guy. Eh!.

    So you accept that the KCA is sound up to the point of invoking God as the cause?
    I'm okay with that.

    Well I am going to claim that it is logically valid, simply because it is. If you don't want God to be the cause, then so be it.

    You need to comprehend what God is, and if there can be anything outside of God. That may seem inconsistent with logic, from your perspective, but ultimately what matters is your life, not what you believe is logically consistent or not.
    If God exists, then God is the cause. Of course if for you God doesn't exist, then you have nothing worry about.

    You asked: Is there anything other than God that does not begin to exist?
    I'm saying I don't know. My experience tells me that everything that begins to exist has a cause, which is right in line with the first premise. I suspect that is your experience also. There are things that may have popped into existence un-caused, but I don't know of such things, or have no experience of such things. And neither does anyone else.
    Everything that begins to exist, is not a subset of all things, it is all things. Everything, is All things. The possibility that there could be things that come into existence that are not caused, is based on the fact that we don't know for certain that such things exist, or not.

    Why have you?
    Do you experience God as a thing?
    If you have no experience of God as a thing, then why ask the question?

    You think you've explained it, but you haven't.
    You say I have introduced irrelevancies, yet you are the one invoking God in the first premise, where God does not need to be invoked. It is little wonder you think the argument begs the question.
    I'm okay with the scriptural definition of God. You aren't.
    You're the drowning man clutching at straws, because you believe you have dismantled the KCA, by actually begging the question. The problem is you can't see it because you deny the scripture that define God. Plus you think that to accept God, as defined, is to believe in God as a religious deity.
    Are you prepared to use scripture as a basis for the definition of God?

    Let's say that I don't have the capacity to defeat you in logic? Does that mean that God does not exist?
    Let's say that you and Mr Barker are on to something, does that mean God does not exist?

    And I'm arguing that God is not built into the premise. That you have to invoke God, to make such an assumption.
    Again, if you don't acknowledge what God is, then you will always make these assumptions.
    You have to begin with God, in a bid to draw correct conclusions.

    I have answered you questions on more than one occasion, but you have basically ignored them.
    I have stated that matter/energy didn't begin to exist, and the totality, the complete whole, didn't begin to exist.

    Yes that everything that begins to exist has a cause. What more is there?

    You asked: is there anything other than God that didn't begin to exist. Why?
    What does that have to do with the premise?

    Well you should get on to soundness, because you we're not talking about God, or the existence of God, here.
    It is simply a game in which you try to prove the non existence of God (even though you won't admit it), by limiting God to a word which can mean anything anyone wants it to mean.

    You're already in a corner.

    Based on the definition of God, yes.
    But if you deny the definition...

    When you can unpack that deception, then you'll have something, but for now it just seems like wishful thinking.

    I understand the argument, but clearly you don't. Why?
    Because you deny the definition of God.

    jan.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That is false. You have had experience of quantum phenomena, which do not have "causes", and thermodynamic properties of objects, which do not have "causes", and rain or ecological patterns, which have nothing one can define as their "cause".
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Jan Ardena:

    I could potentially be persuaded that the KCA is a logically valid argument, but I'm not there yet. As for soundness, I have barely touched on that. My opinion is that the argument is not sound, since both of the first two premises are debatable.

    That's an empty claim from you because you haven't demonstrated that you understand the objection that has been put to you on the matter of validity.

    It's not about what I want. In this thread, I'm only interested in examining whether the claim that the KCA proves that a God must exist is sustainable. I submit that it is not.

    If your argument is that "God defies logic" then you don't need the KCA. What the KCA is supposed to do is to convince people who care about logic that the existence of God is logically mandated.

    If you prefer a God that is illogical and which makes no sense in regard to everything else that we know about the world, then I'm not sure why you are at all interested in discussing a supposed logical proof of the existence of God.

    It is impossible to have a rational discussion about the existence or otherwise of any God that defies logic and reason.

    The KCA asks us to conclude that God is not a "thing that began to exist", and therefore can be uncaused. It is logical possible for God to be a "thing" that did not begin to exist. In that case, we need to investigate whether the KCA begs the question. An alternative possibility is that God is not a "thing". In that case, the KCA does not allow us to conclude that God is uncaused, because the first premise of the KCA only concerns "things".

    If there are things that do not begin to exist other than God, then the KCA leaves open the possibility that one of those things caused the universe, and not God.

    In my opinion, "thing" is a very general term. A "thing" can be an idea, an object, a quality, a feeling, or God. And more besides.

    As far as the KCA goes, I see no good reason to exclude God from the category of "things" mentioned in premise 1. The category "everything that begins to exist" is obviously a subcategory of "everything". The point about begging the question follows from an investigation into what, exactly, that subcategory might contain and - more significantly - what it might exclude.

    You're repeating yourself. The argument you need to address is the one that says that Craig's version of the KCA tries to sneak God into the first premise without making it obvious. The flaw is not mine, but in the way that the KCA is constructed in order to try to prove what is actually assumed from the start.

    Does it matter? How is the scriptural definition of God relevant to the KCA? Do you think that a scriptural definition of God is necessary in order for the KCA to be valid?

    It's the KCA that begs the question, not me. The argument that establishes this is right there in the opening post of the thread. I'm just pointing out a flaw in the KCA, that's all.

    You'll need to explain why I need to know anything about scripture in order to work out whether the KCA is logically valid or not.

    What is your understanding of what a religious deity is, and what is your understand of what God is (if not a religious deity)?

    For what purpose? Aren't we discussing the KCA in this thread?

    Of course not. If the KCA is a flawed or invalid argument, it doesn't mean you can't have your God any more. It just means that you can't say that the KCA proves that God exists. You can't hold up the KCA as an argument that supports the existence of God. That's all.

    Obviously, it is Craig's claim that the KCA establishes - logically - the existence of God. It is only that claim that I wish to examine in this thread. The KCA is supposed to conjure God up by a pure feat of logic. I say it does not do so. Craig claims it does. What do you think, Jan?

    The KCA is supposed to end with God, not begin with it. That is the problem I've been trying to draw your attention to from the opening post.

    Then it is logically open to us to conclude, if we accept the validity of the KCA, that matter/energy caused the universe, and not God.

    I'm okay with that. How about you?

    Walking you through it yet again would surely be a waste of time. Go back and read the opening post. Try to understand it.

    Can't you see that the KCA itself is simply a game in which Craig (or whoever) tries to prove the existence of God by constructing an argument that, in one way or another, sneaks the assumption of God's existence in from the start?

    I agree with you, however, that we should move on to discuss issues of soundness. It is clear that you are unlikely at this time to get your head around the matter of validity that has been raised, and I am of the opinion that further discussion on that matter will continue to retread old ground.
     

Share This Page