Jan Ardena:
1a. Everything has a cause.
1b. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
To me, it looks like 1b is making a distinction between things that begin to exist and things that do not begin to exist, and talking about only those things that begin to exist. In contrast, to me it seems that 1a is talking about all things.
So, how about you. Do you think there are the same or different? Explain.
If "the totality" is the same as God, and "the totality" includes things, then God/the totality includes things. That is, things are part of God, or part of the mereology you're calling God, or whatever.
You keep dancing around this question. Why?
What doesn't begin to exist, apart from God?
Barker did not reformulate Craig's argument. The version of the KCA that I put in the opening post is from Craig, not from Barker. I have been discussing Craig's KCA argument all along.I am still discussing the KCA, but there is an obstacle that has arisen (Barker's reformulation), which make you convinced that the argument is invalid for that reason.
Compare:It claims that the first premise contains 2 claims, as opposed to the 1 claim it does make. It supposes that the claim makes reference to things that don't begin to exist. This is false.
1a. Everything has a cause.
1b. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
To me, it looks like 1b is making a distinction between things that begin to exist and things that do not begin to exist, and talking about only those things that begin to exist. In contrast, to me it seems that 1a is talking about all things.
So, how about you. Do you think there are the same or different? Explain.
Yes, that's what I thought. So "the totality" is just another name for "God", and you're begging the question.I contend that the scriptural definitions, and descriptions of what we term as God, is synonymous, at a basic level, with the definition I stated, of the term totality.
No. You can't have it both ways.God is a non thing in relation to things. And it neither irrelevant, or fluff.
If "the totality" is the same as God, and "the totality" includes things, then God/the totality includes things. That is, things are part of God, or part of the mereology you're calling God, or whatever.
I'd prefer it if you stopped dancing around and started saying what you mean. When you're talking about God, don't talk about "the totality" in an effort to obscure what it is you're referring to. Use the word "God".I'm happy to not mention G-O-D, and call it the totality if you like.
Is there something other than God that does not begin to exist?How is the totality assumed in the first premise 'everything that begins to exist has a cause' if it is a fact that everything that we can observe beginning to exist has a cause. That information merely draws attention to our natural observations.
You keep dancing around this question. Why?
We might get to that later.What does begin to exist without a cause?
What doesn't begin to exist, apart from God?