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

[Qfwfq]

The premises are ;

 

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

 

2...The universe began to exist.

 

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

 

(This cause is God) according to the modern version of the KCA as per Dr WilliamCraig.

1. The necessity of prima causa is quite disputed in philosophy.
   
2. Cosmogony is outside the range of current science; Robertson-Walker models can only describe things following the so-called Big Bang; these models have their own axioms.
   
3. Not a true premise, it follows from the first two by modus ponens.
   

The leap from "some cause" to "a god" is arbitrary: The idea that BB had some cause is highly appealing; it could well have been Mrs. Ph(i)nk0 volunteering to make tagliatelle all'emiliana, if only she had a bit of time and a bit of space. The real how's and the why's of it are beyond our reach.

 

Reason, logic and observation can't prove it was an entity called "god", nor that it was something else (and what), nor that there was no cause. One may or may not add a personal belief to what can be inferred by other knowledge; I don't and that's why I'm agnostic.

 

I am, however, very greatly fond of Mrs. Ph(i)nk0. B) B) B) :thumbs_up

[Pyrotex]

Well, well, well.

The old KCA canard again?

 

Come on guys, that ancient slight-of-hand logical "trick" was refuted before you were born.

 

The slight-of-hand involves several cons:

-- you are conned into accepting the KCA as "innocent until proven guilty" and wind up on the wrong (and unworkable) end of the arguement.

-- you are conned into accepting the validity that "cause and effect" applies to all sequential events, like it was some kind of Law of Nature.

-- you are conned into accepting "eternal" as a valid and real characteristic that can be attributed to natural objects.

-- you are conned into accepting "god" as a member of the class of "natural objects".

-- you are conned into accepting that piling up facts and evidence and theories from physics and cosmology is your best way to counter the KCA.

-- you are conned into accepting that the statement, "the KCA has been challenged, but never defeated" means that it has never been successfully refuted. Wrong! It has never been "defeated" because you cannot overcome it with a frontal assault on its own terms. You must outflank it, and attack its assumptions and cons from behind!

 

When are you youngins gonna learn not to go on the defensive when confronted with a fake attack?

 

:lol: :bat: :hyper:

 

I have silently given you 9 pages in which to deal with that sorry and decrepit old KCA. I sure hope you all had fun, because it was painful for me to watch.

 

:hyper: :cheer: :hihi:

 

Now. Toss your Big Bang arguments in the closet, and get to work. I have given you all the clues you need to bury the KCA in the dungheap of history where it belongs (and where, in fact, it has been buried so many times before).

 

Good luck. I'm right behind you!

[Pyrotex]

...

I am, however, very greatly fond of Mrs. Ph(i)nk0. :shrug: :D :eek_big: :eek_big:

I absolutely loved the text by Italo Calvino! :)

So THAT is where your avatar name comes from!

Aha! A mystery solved.

Now, what was the equation?