Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

Yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First, you clearly don't classify yourself under "everything"?
Second, this now a new definition of "everything" than your previous. "Everything is all that exists".
Third, you claimed that "everything" and "every thing" mean the same, but when you try to say that "everything" is merely inanimate things and not everything else, you are using a fallacy of equivocation.
Be consistent, Jan. don't just make shit up to try to squirm out of a position you find yourself in.

And lastly, how does any of your post actually get you out of the tangle you've put yourself in by the illogical assertions of "everything is all that exists", "god is distinct from everything", "god exists"?

Not if all you conclude is "therefore the universe was caused". Is has been explained to you at length.
It is when you then go on to conclude "thus the uncaused causer exists" you are begging the question, as that is the only way in which you could each that conclusion from the previous lines of the argument, as already explained previously.

The third premise is not a premise but a conclusion from the first two lines (which are premises).
Second: you conclude that the universe had a cause... then how do you get from there to the subsequent conclusion that God is the cause, God being the uncaused causer. Explain your logic. At the moment you have simply asserted the claim again and again and again. No logic. Nothing. Just bare assertion.

If you are referring to Craig's ontological argument, you have clearly brushed over the criticism of it. And posting some attributes doesn't wash - you need to support how you arrive at the cause requiring those attributes (as per Craig's argument).

I am aware that it doesn't mean that. It is your job, as supporting the KCA, to show that God has always been there AND caused the universe. Can you do that, please? Remember, the argument being discussed was put forth as a proof of the existence of God. At best it can be said to provide a valid proof that the universe was caused, although the soundness of that is up for debate, and then Craig goes on to try to prove the attributes that the cause must have, which is again open for criticism regarding its validity and of course it's soundness.

And your support for this assertion is...?

You're pathetic, Jan. You pull up new definitions almost with each new attempt to avoid facing the illogic of your arguments.

You have lost all semblance of credence in this matter.
You have shown yourself to be blind to logic, and too full of hubris to actually be aware of what it is you have said previously as your only focus is on trying to defeat the post in front of you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is sidetracking from the discussion of the KCA, which I'm assuming is because you have no answer to the criticism of it?
Other than of course further invalid logic and mere assertion?

As to your assertion above, how can we want something if we don't already exist?
Is God into circular reasoning now as well?

"Why did you create me, God?"
"Because you wanted to experience like me!"
"Well, I do now that you've created me, sure, but until I was created I had no desires, surely? I mean, I didn't actually exist!"
"But you do want to experience like me now, then?"
"Well, yes, I do now, but..."
"So quit your jibber-jabbering! Experience like me!"

So you believe.
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! I detect an a priori assumption leading to circular reasoning. Danger!

Argument from fine tuning should get its own thread, as it is question-begging in the extreme: assume we are the purpose, and lo and behold everything seems to fit... therefore we must have been the purpose!
It's far worse an argument than the KCA.

We certainly have the ability to claim to know, or at least to think we know God.

We've actually learnt nothing about the greatness of God through any of what you suggest.
We may simply have deluded ourselves into thinking something exists and is responsible when it may not actually exist at all.

It is an ability some take for granted actually exists in the first place, without actually supporting that notion with valid and sound logic.
[qupte]Of course this has nothing to do with the logic of God's necessary existence, as in it doesn't prove God exists.[/quote]You are at least correct here: it has nothing to do with the logic (or lack thereof) of God's existence.

And if god does not exist?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, are you going to return to trying to support your assertions regarding the KCA, to explain the inconsistencies and confusion in your logic?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It would be a waste of time me explaining that to you, plus as you said, it would be sidetracking.

You detect what you need in order to keep the delusion going.
Thaaaatsss Riiiiighttt! God doesn't exist.

Be my quest.

You mean 'you', not 'we', unless you're asserting your atheist religion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What are you talking about.

There are no inconsistencies, or confusion. Just you lot desperate to invalidate it so you can carry on pretending to believe that God does not exist.

jan.

 

The universe was caused.
I'm okay with that. Like I said you don't have to call it God (even though it is).

jan.

 

Because the universe came into being.

jan.

 

They're not new definitions, they're variations of the definition.

jan.

 

Nope. I totally disagree with you.
You're mad because you can't show that the KCA is invalid. You only know that it has to be, or else it shows that God exists, and you can't have that.

jan.

 

I can't really understand what you say here. Perhaps you can give some examples of neutral or negative features.

 

All you have to do is show how everything arised out of nothing, or everything continuously exists without the need for cause, as opposed to God sounding everything into material existence, and how it require fewer new and /or additional concepts.

I assume you mean God.
That being said, why would you choose like that?

That goes for your concoction also.

jan.

 

Oh yeah,
my explanation for why there is no logical necessity for a creator, although humans have believed there is one for as long as we've been looking for celestial evidence of one:

If God created the universe then God created time. But this statement is not logical--creation or causation implies the existence of time. We need to think about a beginning of time which can have no cause, a "cause of the beginning of time" isn't logical. A celestial God isn't logical, and there is no evidence for one.

The real reason we've been looking all this time (since, say, Stonehenge) is anthropological, not cosmological, although the one "speaks" to the other (heh).

 

God itself is a complex concept for which there is zero evidence. It is by no means a default position.

KCA has many flaws:
We don't know if the first rule is correct, that everything with a beginning requires a cause.
We don't know the universe or anything else had a beginning (so where does the rule come from?).
We don't know that a cause is a God, because causes can be simple and God as a concept is inherently complex.

 

The actual cause represents the beginning. Time occurs because of the movement of matter.

What do we know?

jan.

 

Nobody has been looking for God (in the way you mean).
God exists, and it is up to the denier to show that He doesn't.
It's quite silly to go out and about looking for God, as nobody believes that you can find God in a test tube, or in the fossil record.
The default position IS God exists.

jan.

 

The logical conclusion that the universe was caused is a valid one given the 2 initial premises, but that is a far cry from saying that the cause was uncaused, and that it is God - the attributes for which you have rather specific notions about.
Furthermore, the conclusion that the universe was caused, while valid given the premises, is not necessarily sound.
You need to demonstrate the truth of the premises to show that the conclusion is sound.

And your support for this assertion is...?

FFS! Where more than one possible meaning can exist it behooves you to detail which one you mean when you use a word that is subsequently questioned. You can't just use one "variation" in one place and another "variation" at another place - that is a fallacy of equivocation. To do so deliberately as you admit is also dishonest. Stick to one variation, please.
And none of your "variations" actually gets you out of the logical impossibility that you have claimed (recall your claims: everything is all that exists, God is distinct from everything, God exists).

Of course you do, Jan, it's all your capable of, telling people they're wrong but not supporting your position.

It has been shown to be invalid as per the discussion above. Your every effort to counter that has been simply to reassert your claim.

You'd think that in a discussion looking to analyse the form of a logical argument that the participants would at least have a basic understanding of how to construct logical arguments, and more importantly that they actually argue logically. You fail on all counts, Jan.

 

Fallacy of shifting the burden.

So you believe, as the apt phrase seems to be. Further you have finally admitted, even if you don't recognise it, that you hold the a priori assumption that God exists. This is what it means to consider something the default position. So thank you for at least admitting it, having spent an inordinate amount of drivel previously denying it in who knows how many other threads.

 

You support your assertions.

It's a simple word to comprehend, I assumed you'd know that.
But I cannot use one of the variations to describe something like what we're talking about.

I'm not aware of any logical impossibilities. Just repeating that my arguments are invalid, does nothing to explain why they are invalid. Your slight of hand trickery, shifting the goalposts of the definition of everything, has failed miserably. So what's your next trick?

The KCA supports my position. You have yet to point out why it is invalid.

It has not been shown to be invalid, it has only been asserted that it has, with vague trickery of semantics, to create smoke and mirrors.
I'm not buying that.

The argument has been constructed logically. You have to show it invalidity, not expect me to.
So far you fail miserably.

jan.

 

Yes I shifted it back to where it belonged.

It logically follows that God is the default position, no matter what you want to call Him.

jan.

 

Not much, and yet you claim to know all.

 

Care to show where I haven't?

And which variation would that be? The one that says that everything is merely every inanimate object/matter, the one that says that everything is all that exists, or one of the others that you have tried to use (and if so, which one?).
Leaving us to guess the meaning you intend is blatantly dishonest, nor does it actually help you in trying to explain your way out of your tangle. But I'll guess now that you will be oblivious to that as well, despite it being related to you several times in the past few pages.

Of course you're not aware, Jan - you're ridiculously oblivious to anything that might suggest your stated position is flawed.
To repeat post #108: "Sure - and in doing that you are saying that anything outside of the Universe, that is not a part of the universe or the entirety of the universe, does not exist. So if it exists (as you claim God does) then it must be part of the universe. Do you agree to that implication of what you are saying in that definition? It does go against your previous assertion that God is distinct from everything."
To repeat post #118: "Simply put, if the universe is defined as everything then logically there can be nothing outside of the universe. That includes no God.
Oh, that's right, you want to exclude god from everything, but then define everything as all that exists, but also want God to exist, despite having separated God from everything. So really you're saying that "everything is all that exists, except God who also exists but is not included under the label of everything.""

There's no sleight of hand, Jan, although to a person as seemingly blind to logic as you I guess you might think that. Shifting the goalposts? Where? As ever, while I happily support my assertions, you have sweet FA to support yours, and no doubt you will be posting more drivel to try to swamp out the issues.

FFS, Jan. This entire thread is basically us showing the flawed logic and you coming along and simply going: "nope, it's valid, and you haven't shown why".

Of course you're not buying it, Jan, because not only are you intellectually bankrupt with regard logic, there is simply no trickery, no semantics other than you trying to equivocate over the meaning of "everything", and there is no smoke and no mirrors. There is simply your inability to comprehend that which others say. But instead of admit it, instead of withdraw and try and gain an understanding before you reply, you just defecate once again over a thread with no respect for either it or anyone participating.

Read the thread, Jan. But this time actually try, just try, to understand what has been said. All you have done is keep bleating "no, you're wrong!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Once again demonstrating your lack of comprehension of fallacies, which is ironic given your proclivity for them.

Logically follows from what, Jan? From the premises that haven't been shown to be sound? And that equates God to simply whatever it is that caused (if the universe was caused) the universe? So you're happy for God to simply be an interaction/collision of branes, if brane-theory happens to be correct, with no intent, no purpose, no intelligence, sentience or will?

Jan, a serious request: please stop defecating over this thread with your ignorance of logic.