Jump to content
Science Forums

The kca, a logical argument for the existence of god.


RevOfAllRevs

Recommended Posts

1...Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.

I'm not sure we have the language to discuss causality in depth - maybe in a few hundred more years - so let's mark this one as probably true.

2...The universe began to exist.

There seems to be a lot more evidence for the big bang than there was, though a pulsating steady state - big bangs, repeated endlessly - is also possible. But let's mark this one as probably true also.

3...Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. This cause is God.

This is the one that puts people's hackles up. If the first two points are true, then your first sentence is true. Assigning the cause as "God" without further exposition is quite simply discourteous to this forum. It could have been random fluctuations in the multiverse ("why did the tornado happen there and then instead of there and then?", or an accretion of matter leading to a critical mass (the final snowflake that causes the avalanche) or a bunch of scientists running experiments in some higher-order dimension, or a load of other things.

 

But let's assume that all three points are completely true, to see where it leads us. God created the universe, watched it for over 13 billion years, then a few thousand years ago decided to create mankind. What's he been doing all this time? If we're such an important part of creation - just about the only thing that all religions agree on - why did it take him so long?

 

Or are we an important part? Maybe we're like the nest of ants I saw today in a crack in the concrete path. I made the path, but did I make it for the ants? Clearly not. I didn't even know they were there until today.

 

Taking things further... assume that God created the universe just for us. Maybe he fast-forwarded the whole thing until we turned up. Is there any evidence that he's the God of the Christians? That the Bible is true? That we have immortal souls that can only be saved by belief in Him? That He demands worship? That He has empowered a group of men to speak for him and judge the rest of humanity?

 

With no evidence for any of these things, it remains an interesting but pointless speculation. It doesn't lead to new ways of seeing the universe, or manipulating it. It doesn't give us any guidance on how we should behave. So why work so hard trying to convince us? What's in it for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem Rev, as with everything, is: (1) you speak of something you do not know, and (2) you assign great weight to your favorites arbitrarily, whether you know them or not. Hence, you arrive at conclusion that must encounter scrutiny and resistance. Moreover, for those same reasons, the persuasive power of your argument is attenuated.

 

I earned my MA at Milligan in 1987 (in comparative theology with emphasis on ancient languages). And would happily compare credentials with anyone that doubts my educational background. My degree alone would qualify me to professionally debate or teach Philosophy, which the last time I looked included cosmological arguments.

 

Also what I have presented here is commonly known to even most laypeople that discuss this subject. So I would suggest that it is the audience (you) that is lacking in very basic understanding. That is why I asked anyone that wanted to debate the KCA at least read up on it and know the basics. This would include basic big bang cosmology.

 

And please unless you are saying that everything I speak of is in ignorance please provide examples. I fear you are simply making statements you can not back up. In fact I am asking you to verify and support those claims.

 

Thank you in advance for your forthcoming reply.

 

; }>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First thank you Donk for your well thought out reply. You do know your material well.

 

I'm not sure we have the language to discuss causality in depth - maybe in a few hundred more years - so let's mark this one as probably true.

 

Thanks, I agree that not only is the language difficult , its unnecessary. There are resources on the web for anyone that wants to discover more about causality, I am learning more every day and attempt to stay current with reading and my night classes. (I am attempting to earn my PhD).

 

there seems to be a lot more evidence for the big bang than there was, though a pulsating steady state - big bangs, repeated endlessly - is also possible. But let's mark this one as probably true also.

 

I mentioned that there were many theories some better than others. However the standard hot model of the big bang simply has the best empirical evidence to support it, and speaking of support the overwhelming majority of scientist and text books use the BB model. So of course I agree with you.

 

This is the one that puts people's hackles up. If the first two points are true, then your first sentence is true. Assigning the cause as "God" without further exposition is quite simply discourteous to this forum.

 

Ha ha yes indeed! But why? This is the theology forum! A cosmological argument relies on reason as well as logic and other factors. I (and more than a few the great minds of history*) simply think that God is a reasonable answer. Why? If you agree with premise one and two you must know that the ‘cause’ existed before (or outside time) time zero (T-0). Nothing in science is know to exist before or outside the universe. We also know that time or more accurately space time was created just after time zero!

 

So the ’cause’ that caused the universe to begin to exist was atemporal. So I claim that its reasonable to assume that anything that is atemporal ie the ’cause’ that caused the universe to begin to exist is eternal/atemporal. This ’cause’ made a universe begin to exist ! This cause was eternal or atemporal. NOTHING (caps for emphasis only) known to science is eternal. So I feel that anything that is eternal and can cause a universe to begin to exist on the first try (as what you said we could accept as true ie Big bang cosmology), not just any universe a universe that supports life, can be reasonably assumed to be God.

 

It could have been random fluctuations in the multiverse

("why did the tornado happen there and then instead of there and then?", or an accretion of matter leading to a critical mass (the final snowflake that causes the avalanche) or a bunch of scientists running experiments in some higher-order dimension, or a load of other things.

 

You agreed that the BB was more than likely true. The standard big bang only assumes one universe (this one) has ever existed. So you see how one premise if true leads to another locking up in ever more nearly unassailable logical theory.

 

 

But let's assume that all three points are completely true, to see where it leads us. God created the universe, watched it for over 13 billion years, then a few thousand years ago decided to create mankind. What's he been doing all this time? If we're such an important part of creation - just about the only thing that all religions agree on - why did it take him so long?

 

Good question. My answer is that God designed the universe to run on natural law start to finish. He knows with a very high degree of probability what will happen in the universe including man. In other words God allows the universe to use natural law to unfold from the original design. God himself is can enter time but does not exist in time.

 

Or are we an important part? Maybe we're like the nest of ants I saw today in a crack in the concrete path. I made the path, but did I make it for the ants? Clearly not. I didn't even know they were there until today.

 

As a theist I would say we are the centerpiece of the universe.

 

Taking things further... assume that God created the universe just for us. Maybe he fast-forwarded the whole thing until we turned up. Is there any evidence that he's the God of the Christians? That the Bible is true? That we have immortal souls that can only be saved by belief in Him? That He demands worship? That He has empowered a group of men to speak for him and judge the rest of humanity?

 

I usually bring this up in another thread. However personally I use bible prophesy both fulfilled and non fulfilled and the bible which I consider a accurate document that is verified by archeological evidences ‘every day’ and other factors to come to my personal conclusion that Christianity is the religion that best describes the God that Created or allowed the universe to begin to exist. Due to the complexity and the different tangents this would get into I usually defend my beliefs in another thread. I use the KCA simply to illustrate that God is a logical explanation for the origins of the universe. Then if that is hammered out and at least agreed upon as possible I attempt to flesh out my personal reasons for choosing Christianity.

 

With no evidence for any of these things, it remains an interesting but pointless speculation. It doesn't lead to new ways of seeing the universe, or manipulating it. It doesn't give us any guidance on how we should behave. So why work so hard trying to convince us? What's in it for you?

When and if you can see that its logical and reasonable to assume that God exists I hope that will start you down a path to discovery of what I consider the truth to be. The KCA is only one of quite a few similar cosmological theories. Kurt Godel, who was perhaps second only to Einstein in intellect (if not his equal) also had a proof of God theory, but its not as interesting as the KCA.

 

Thanks again for your cordial well thought out and interesting reply, you set an example that demonstrates the way debate should be.

 

; }>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Double standards, much? You argue against my point by saying they lack evidence, when your own proposition has zero.

 

 

Further, you are again mistaken. The ideas presented in the links I shared ARE supported by evidence and empiricism. Read more closely... actually, just read them at all, will you? You responded within 2 minutes of my post... hardly enough time to review what was presented and offer a valid rebuttal.

 

I read your links to the best of my ability. Did you read them? I didn’t see anything that was supported by empirical evidence that harmed my claims. What specifically are you talking about? We should start another thread that examines competing big bang theories instead of doing it here. The standard model of the big bang is the only nearly universally across the board accepted theory.*

 

So, that said~

 

In any case, if you insist on rejecting the standard model of the big bang that is your right. So you and I can simply agree to disagree, however if that is the case there is no need to debate any further, because the KCA relies on the accepted theory of the day. In my opinion rejecting the standard big bang theory is akin to rejecting the theory of evolution claiming that other theories exist to explain the species.

 

Nevertheless, I have rejected and do reject some current widely accepted theory so I know where you are coming from and respect your position.

 

*….Big Bang Theory, currently accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe. ... microwave background, which provides evidence for the Big Bang Theory. ... and thought-provoking exploration of the theoretical and empirical bases of a .... known not only for the adventurousness of his ideas but for the clarity ...

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10.htm

 

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The KCA is a form of ontological argument called a cosmological argument for the existence of God. The contemporary Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) for God’s existence involves literally hundreds of supporting arguments, counter arguments, and multi-arguments from a wide range of disciplines which includes but not limited to the philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, philosophy of religion, philosophy of time, philosophical theology, metaphysics, physical cosmology and cosmogony, and more.

It's the old argument of God being the "Prime Mover". This argument does not bring anything to the table, because it merely obfuscates matters by bringing an unnecessary element into the equation. We say "The universe must have a beginning" and then invoke "God" into the equation, as the entity who flipped the switch to let the Big Bang bomb go off. Then, following from that, we have to ask "but where does God come from?", and the answer is either "God is eternal" or "we don't know". But why not take out that redundant step and say "Yes, the universe did start somewhere, but we don't know from where," or "the universe itself is eternal."

It goes like this in its most simple form. The premises are ;

 

1...Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.

Why, then, would God be excused from this? I suspect it's because of the wording, where you say "Whatever begins to exist, has a cause" - which means the sentence in this form is actually an oxymoron. Of course everything that "begins" has a "cause". Which could very well exclude God - but it could just as well exclude the entire universe. All we know it that all matter and space was once upon a time so close together that all information about what came before was entirely and completely annihilated. It is not to say that everything "came out of nothing", however. Our knowledge of that specific epoch in the history of the universe is simply too limited to make any speculation regarding the cause of it profitable in any way. But the data might still be forthcoming, though. Currently, however, it falls far too short to pinpoint the Cause of Everything to anything more than pure speculation. And that includes God and any other proposed solution.

2...The universe began to exist.

We simply do not know that. All that we do know, is that energy and space was so compressed that it literally went through a cusp of information annihilation. There is no evidence towards the universe not having existed eternally before the Big Bang. These scientific uncertainties makes this particular philosophical argument rather moot.

3...Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. This cause is God.

There is absolutely no reason to assign the cause of something completely unknown to any entity fitting the mold of "God". Based on what is that conclusion derived? Let's say (for the moment) that that particular cause was indeed "God". Then flipping the switch on the Big Bang Bomb was the very last act of this particular God that we cannot account for by more rational means, like Science. Which means God flipped the switch and exited Stage Left, fifteen billion years ago. Which makes for a God diametrically opposed to any God of any shape or form that is believed in by any religion of any flavor. If you're a Christian, for example, and you say God created the universe via the Big Bang, then I'll readily agree by saying "Yes, if might have been a God - but it certainly isn't the God you believe in - because we haven't seen him for fifteen billion years." So, if it was God who did it, what imposter are you believing in? The logic of this proposition is at least more solid than jumping from "The Universe Started Somewhere" to "Therefor God Did It".

The universe began to exist therefore the universe has a cause for its existence (God)* . God has no cause for his existence because he is eternal and therefore requires no cause to begin to exist. This simple argument has never been defeated in professional debate only challenged.

I fail to see how the above holds. Why should the universe have a beginning, but not God? Why is the universe, then, not "eternal"? Keep in mind that there is no information at all about the universe for the first few moments after the Big Bang, nor anything that came before it - because the Big Bang was just a cusp of information annihilation. We do not know that that is the point where everything came from, or if the entire universe was eternal to begin with.

I would urge anyone that wants to challenge me on this read a bit about the KCA first. While deceptively simple it’s a very good theistic argument and one that I use to support my religious paradigm.

"God" being the "Prime Mover" is really not a new argument. And the objections towards it is still the same as ever. Not knowing what caused the universe (in its current incarnation, if the pulsating universe theory holds) does not logically imply the existence of God, nor that this proposed solution to the problem (God did it) holds any water.

 

This argument only works in a theistic sense, in that the very existence of God is presupposed. So you're using a logical fallacy to prove a presupposition.

 

I'm sorry, Rev, but this argument simply doesn't cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the old argument of God being the "Prime Mover". This argument does not bring anything to the table, because it merely obfuscates matters by bringing an unnecessary element into the equation. We say "The universe must have a beginning" and then invoke "God" into the equation, as the entity who flipped the switch to let the Big Bang bomb go off. Then, following from that, we have to ask "but where does God come from?", and the answer is either "God is eternal" or "we don't know". But why not take out that redundant step and say "Yes, the universe did start somewhere, but we don't know from where," or "the universe itself is eternal."

 

The modern version of the KCA was modeled by Dr William Craig. When the big bang was proven as likely that brought the KCA to the forefront of debate again, because the emergence of new evidence. Additionally, I would argue that if you agree with the premise one you have ask what caused the universe to begin to exist. And due to the limitations of our physics and science this question is necessarily philosophical one. We can remain in ignorance and not even ask the question or be brave and explore.

 

Why, then, would God be excused from this? I suspect it's because of the wording, where you say "Whatever begins to exist, has a cause" - which means the sentence in this form is actually an oxymoron. Of course everything that "begins" has a "cause". Which could very well exclude God -

 

Wrong my friend. God is atemporal he or it existed before the universe (and therefore time) began to exist, so God did not begin to exist. That is the Gotcha moment of the KCA, the snap of the mouse trap. The wording is specific and accurate for a reason.

 

but it could just as well exclude the entire universe. All we know it that all matter and space was once upon a time so close together that all information about what came before was entirely and completely annihilated. It is not to say that everything "came out of nothing", however. Our knowledge of that specific epoch in the history of the universe is simply too limited to make any speculation regarding the cause of it profitable in any way. But the data might still be forthcoming, though. Currently, however, it falls far too short to pinpoint the Cause of Everything to anything more than pure speculation. And that includes God and any other proposed solution.

 

Ha ha and that is wishful thinking my friend. I have already demonstrated that if the premises are correct, and at least one member here understands they most likely are, it logically follows that the KCA is a very good, logical and reasonable argument. So far you have not damaged it, only made some vague claims which is your privilege.

 

We simply do not know that. All that we do know, is that energy and space was so compressed that it literally went through a cusp of information annihilation. There is no evidence towards the universe not having existed eternally before the Big Bang. These scientific uncertainties makes this particular philosophical argument rather moot.

 

I did not say the universe existed before the big bang, in fact I said that the universe began to exist about 14B years ago. Only the cause for the universe to begin to exist existed ‘before’ the universe. I detailed why we have to use the tools of logic etc to probe what could of happened before T-0. (time zero).

 

There is absolutely no reason to assign the cause of something completely unknown to any entity fitting the mold of "God". Based on what is that conclusion derived? Let's say (for the moment) that that particular cause was indeed "God". Then flipping the switch on the Big Bang Bomb was the very last act of this particular God that we cannot account for by more rational means, like Science. Which means God flipped the switch and exited Stage Left, fifteen billion years ago. Which makes for a God diametrically opposed to any God of any shape or form that is believed in by any religion of any flavor. If you're a Christian, for example, and you say God created the universe via the Big Bang, then I'll readily agree by saying "Yes, if might have been a God - but it certainly isn't the God you believe in - because we haven't seen him for fifteen billion years." So, if it was God who did it, what imposter are you believing in? The logic of this proposition is at least more solid than jumping from "The Universe Started Somewhere" to "Therefor God Did It".

 

One day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day. That is scripture meaning time has no meaning to God because God is atemporal, and contrary to your beliefs I see God every day! God that created the universe is totally compatible with the God of the bible. You should read The science of God by Dr Schroeder he makes the case far more persuasively than I.

 

I fail to see how the above holds. Why should the universe have a beginning, but not God? Why is the universe, then, not "eternal"? Keep in mind that there is no information at all about the universe for the first few moments after the Big Bang, nor anything that came before it - because the Big Bang was just a cusp of information annihilation. We do not know that that is the point where everything came from, or if the entire universe was eternal to begin with.

 

The easiest answer is that ‘Time’ was created in the big bang. So that means that the cause or God was eternal (atemporal). Anything eternal does not begin to exist because its been here before time as per the premise and the evidence of the Big Bang.

 

"God" being the "Prime Mover" is really not a new argument. And the objections towards it is still the same as ever. Not knowing what caused the universe (in its current incarnation, if the pulsating universe theory holds) does not logically imply the existence of God, nor that this proposed solution to the problem (God did it) holds any water.

 

God is the first cause prime mover, I have explained why I feel this is true in earlier posts.

 

This argument only works in a theistic sense, in that the very existence of God is presupposed. So you're using a logical fallacy to prove a presupposition. I'm sorry, Rev, but this argument simply doesn't cut it.

 

Well that is a huge misstatement. The KCA is a valid cosmological argument and is accepted as such in academia and any other venue I can think of. I don’t see how you can say the KCA is a logical fallacy at all! Perhaps its just wishful thinking on your part. However as always it’s a pleasure debating this with you.

 

; }>

 

Amazon.com: The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and ...

Amazon.com: The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (9780767903035): Gerald L. Schroeder: Books.

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence.../076790303X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The criticisms and counters to the argument put forth in this thread are already summarized for us here:

 

 

 

Cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What caused the First Cause?

 

One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require a cause. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue. The problem with arguing for the First Cause's exemption is that it raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt. Proponents who follow William Lane Craig's statement of the argument counter that the atheists' objection is a straw-man argument, pointing out that the first premise does not state that everything needs a cause, only that an entity needs a cause if and only if it has a beginning; thus, since the First Cause (often God) doesn't have a beginning, it doesn't need a cause. Also, if the First Cause has a cause then it is not the First Cause (and begins the cycle of infinite regression again), that is to say exemption of the First Cause is inherent in the First Cause argument.

 

Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and showed that causal relations were not true a priori (deductively). However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent. Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience. The rules of causality only make sense in the context of time, which obviously did not exist before the creation of the universe, thus it could be considered nonsensical to speak of pre-universal "causes", specifically a First Cause, when discussing the origins of the universe.

 

Additionally, it is argued that Occam's razor can be used against the argument, showing how the argument fails using both the efficient and conserving types of causality. However, the claim that the Cosmological Argument fails in using conserving types of causality is debatable; Occam says that it fails for these types of causality only if the universe had no beginning.

 

 

Non-sequitur reasoning

 

A logical objection to the argument from contingency is that the argument makes a logical fallacy called non-sequitur since it makes a false conclusion that "since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist".[citation needed] It is a false conclusion because from the (merely logical) contingency of anything it does not logically follow that there must be some time at which – the merely logically (not empirically) contingent – things, like for example matter, in fact did not exist (in order to prove that matter did need to have a cause outside itself).

 

 

Identity of a First Cause

 

An objection against the theist implication of the proposition is that even if one accepts the argument as a proof of a First Cause, it does not identify that First Cause with God. The argument does not go on to ascribe to the First Cause some of the basic attributes commonly associated with, for instance, a theistic God, such as immanence or omnibenevolence. Rather, it simply argues that a First Cause (e.g. the Big Bang, God, or an unarticulated First Cause) must exist. There exist theistic arguments that attempt to extract such attributes.

 

Furthermore, if one chooses to accept God as the First Cause, God's continued interaction with the Universe is not required. This is the foundation for beliefs such as deism that accept that a god created the Universe, but then ceased to have any further interaction with it.

 

 

Theosophical criticism

 

Aristotle's argument is considered correctable with a minor Theosophical (basically, Classical Philosophical) counterexample and clarification:

 

Aristotle continued (according to the page Unmoved mover) the original argument above as:

5. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.

6. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover.

 

A Theosophist (or neo-Platonist,) requiring very clear terms and logic, would say:

5. From 4 and Peano's axioms or real analysis (or in India or Plotinus' day, maybe #3 and the still modern necessity of very logical terminology,) this causeless cause moves the first (bounded, by definition or etymology, so non-eternal) cause to all others.

6. (Similarly to Aristotle's #4 to 6,) from 5, there must be an unmoved mover.

 

This allows for religious/philosophical ideas farther from the Eastern Mediterranean, such as pralaya (that reality exists before big bangs and after universes' ends,) which is reasonable with M-theory physics. Theosophical Scientists need not identify causeless cause with religious Godhead, but when they use the term "pralaya," they use a term defined caused by Parabrahm (Skt. "Godhead", "causeless cause"; "eternal boundless (infinite) cause of non-eternal first cause ('bounded to one (aeon'"))) so the cosmological argument's remaining destructive counterargument, "Identity of First Cause," can be deemed denial (like a reason for its own argument) as refusal of dialectic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And please unless you are saying that everything I speak of is in ignorance please provide examples. I fear you are simply making statements you can not back up. In fact I am asking you to verify and support those claims.

 

Thank you in advance for your forthcoming reply.

 

; }>

 

We know what we can sense. Everything beyond that is a matter of faith. We can not sense Big bang, Aliens, or God. They are all a matter of faith.

 

You assert God--a matter of faith. You do not support your argument from what we can sense or know, but on other matters of faith: Big Bang, God has no cause, Universe had a beginning. You assign great weight to those matters of faith to prove a higher matter of faith. Your argument is attenuated.

 

But more importantly, the structure of your argument is flawed logically. Your premise is your conclusion: Because only God is capable of original creation, and since Universe was originally created, then God created the universe. This argument is circular. Only trees can grow apples, therefore apples only grow on trees.

 

I am sorry, but that is not how it is done; it's intellectualy lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You agreed that the BB was more than likely true. The standard big bang only assumes one universe (this one) has ever existed. So you see how one premise if true leads to another locking up in ever more nearly unassailable logical theory.

You've put a bit of spin on that statement. True, the standard BB works perfectly well by assuming that this is the only universe that has existed, but it does not demand it. Multiple universes, or multiple dimensions within a single universe, remain unproven and unaddressed by BB theory.

I usually bring this up in another thread. However personally I use bible prophesy both fulfilled and non fulfilled and the bible which I consider a accurate document that is verified by archeological evidences ‘every day’ and other factors to come to my personal conclusion that Christianity is the religion that best describes the God that Created or allowed the universe to begin to exist. Due to the complexity and the different tangents this would get into I usually defend my beliefs in another thread. I use the KCA simply to illustrate that God is a logical explanation for the origins of the universe. Then if that is hammered out and at least agreed upon as possible I attempt to flesh out my personal reasons for choosing Christianity.

 

When and if you can see that its logical and reasonable to assume that God exists I hope that will start you down a path to discovery of what I consider the truth to be. The KCA is only one of quite a few similar cosmological theories. Kurt Godel, who was perhaps second only to Einstein in intellect (if not his equal) also had a proof of God theory, but its not as interesting as the KCA.

You "usually bring this up in another thread"? How many forums have you trolled so far? How much success have you had with them?

 

Don't bother starting another thread for my benefit, please. I assure you, I've heard it all before. And so, I expect, have most people here. I replied to your original post because you were claiming that your beliefs were based on logic. I refuted on logical grounds, and nothing you have said has changed my position.

 

You will not convince me that my money should be given to a church rather than a charity, that my time should be spent on my knees in prayer or worship rather than doing something worthwhile, that I should accept the authority of a body of men who have proved over the centuries to have more than their share of rogues and charlatans, that I should believe "testimony by personal revelation" rather than evidence, that I should conduct line-by-line study of a book of folk-tales rather than a science textbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The universe had a beginning. Therefor God did it.

 

The one simply does not follow from the other. Failing to see that, my dear Reverend, may be "wishful thinking" on your part.

 

Ha ha if you say so, but its not that simple. The premises of the KCA are sound and its a logical reasonable argument. If you reject valid cosmological and ontological arguments out of hand, I opine, with all due respect, that you will remain stuck in the old way of thinking about theology. (old way of thinking means 1920s ideas). That is ok. I find that many people insist on holding on to old outdated ideas about of religion for some reason.

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've put a bit of spin on that statement. True, the standard BB works perfectly well by assuming that this is the only universe that has existed, but it does not demand it. Multiple universes, or multiple dimensions within a single universe, remain unproven and unaddressed by BB theory.

 

First you are repeating what I have already stated. I said that there are other theories although the big bang is the only theory with empirical evidence and is the most popular theory and provided specific links to prove that. Second you agreed with me or said the BB was probably true! ie your words " there seems to be a lot more evidence for the big bang than there was, though a pulsating steady state - big bangs, repeated endlessly - is also possible. But let's mark this one as probably true also."

 

You "usually bring this up in another thread"? How many forums have you trolled so far? How much success have you had with them?

 

First I resent being called a troll. That is close if not a violation of this sites TOS. Wake up this is the THEOLOGY* forum, not the feel good atheist forum. Some people are more intelligent than others and some can put their emotional issues behind them. As a teacher I have had many people agree with the KCA. One more thing another thread does not mean another forum.

 

* Theology is the study and commentary on the existence and attributes of a god or gods, and of how that god or those gods relate to the world and, especially, to human existence and religious thought; more generally, it is the study of religious faith, practice, and experience, or of spirituality ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

 

Don't bother starting another thread for my benefit, please. I assure you, I've heard it all before. And so, I expect, have most people here. I replied to your original post because you were claiming that your beliefs were based on logic. I refuted on logical grounds, and nothing you have said has changed my position.

 

You have not refuted anything of the sort. The KCA is a cosmological argument for the existence of God and fulfills all the conditions of a valid philosophical argument. If you cant win don't be a sore loser.

 

You will not convince me that my money should be given to a church rather than a charity, that my time should be spent on my knees in prayer or worship rather than doing something worthwhile, that I should accept the authority of a body of men who have proved over the centuries to have more than their share of rogues and charlatans, .

 

What? Man are you are so off base. Did I ask for money? I could give a flying flip what you do with your money. I have devoted my life to helping others. I have two christian humanitarian missions, and a church. Before you say anything its all public record here in my home town.

 

that I should believe "testimony by personal revelation" rather than evidence, that I should conduct line-by-line study of a book of folk-tales rather than a science textbook

 

The evidence is there, if you reject the MANY (caps for emphasis only) evidences and cling to old 1920's ideas about theology, region and metaphysics, that's your right and I much differently than you respect your beliefs and refuse to stoop to your level of hostility and name calling. When the mud slinging starts its a sure indication that you have lost the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The criticisms and counters to the argument put forth in this thread are already summarized for us here:

 

 

 

Cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What caused the First Cause?

 

>>>breivty snip<<< Cause," can be deemed denial (like a reason for its own argument) as refusal of dialectic.

 

Please stop with the cut and pastes and put your objections in your own words, I can do the same and that will get us nowhere.

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know what we can sense. Everything beyond that is a matter of faith. We can not sense Big bang, Aliens, or God. They are all a matter of faith.

 

I would agree that faith is an important component of religious belief, I just happened to come to my level of faith through science, then scripture etc rather than reading scripture first.

 

You assert God--a matter of faith. You do not support your argument from what we can sense or know, but on other matters of faith: Big Bang, God has no cause, Universe had a beginning. You assign great weight to those matters of faith to prove a higher matter of faith. Your argument is attenuated.

 

I am not sure what you mean. I take that God exists on faith and I arrived to that faith by the evidences of science the bible and by personal revelation etc. I apologize if my method of coming to my faith harmed you in some way. However be sure that I have faith today. There is no reason why faith can not co exist with scientific evidence. In fact I think God would be rather pleased that we can now point to science as finally caching up with religion ie that the universe is not eternal as science once thought but began to exist just like the good book says.

 

But more importantly, the structure of your argument is flawed logically. Your premise is your conclusion: Because only God is capable of original creation, and since Universe was originally created, then God created the universe. This argument is circular. Only trees can grow apples, therefore apples only grow on trees.

 

That is the peril of a logical argument one premise fits into the next in a infallible logical lockstep. However the argument is not circular God is eternal god created the universe. The KCA must be taken in whole not nitpicked. Only if a premise can be demonstrated to be wrong can the logical conclusion be avoided.

 

Sorry, but that is not how it is done; it's intellectualy lazy.

 

Tell that to Bonaventure Thomas Aquinas and Dr Craig to name a few supporters. However I am sure that Kant and many atheists apologists would agree with you. So you have some good intellectual company. However the KCA has never been defeated only challenged, and its my personal favorite as far as cosmological arguments go, Koon is working on a better more refined version that I may seize upon if and when I have time to read it.

 

Thanks for your reply ~

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take that God exists on faith

 

That is why I said, no more is required than faith. Your attempt to deduce God from the premise of God is circular and attenuated. The question here is not: Whether you are correct about God. The question here is: whether you are persuasive to others about your argument.

 

That is the peril of a logical argument one premise fits into the next in a infallible logical lockstep. However the argument is not circular God is eternal god created the universe. The KCA must be taken in whole not nitpicked. Only if a premise can be demonstrated to be wrong can the logical conclusion be avoided.

 

Your peril is the bootstrapping of your argument. Your conclusion is only supported by itself. You provide nothing else, except: God is the creator, therefore God is the creator.

 

Rev, God is possible and your conclusion maybe 100% correct. But, that is not the point. The point is: you are not persuasive, yet you assert to be persuasive.

 

In discourse there are only two possiblities: (1) You are geniunely positing a persuasive argument to enlighten others, or (2) you are positing a disingenuous argument to swindle others.

 

Here, your argument is logically flawed and disingenuous. Therefore, my conclusion is you are attempting to swindle readers. You got balls, but little reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please stop with the cut and pastes and put your objections in your own words, I can do the same and that will get us nowhere.

 

I find your response both spineless and specious. Specious because that is the first response I have ever made to you where I copy/pasted anything, so your suggestion that this is somehow a regular phenomenon is without merit. Spineless because the text which I posted directly counters the claims you are making, with specifics and counters, yet you have flatly written it off and failed to address the criticisms within.

 

So... if you truly wish to "progress," then you should truly address the criticisms offered in response to your OP, regardless of their source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...