Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument convince you that God exists?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • No.

    Votes: 25 92.6%
  • I'm not sure that I properly understand the argument.

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • No opinion or would rather not answer.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27
That is ridiculous.

Try this one:

T1: All unicorns require a horn.

That premise does not asserts these two things:
1. Unicorns exist
2. Horns exist

That, also is ridiculous, unless one uses a crazy definition of "require".

LOL! How's this:

P1. Life requires matter

It then follows that:

1. Life exists

2. Matter exists

We can accept that horns exist without believing that all horns are on unicorns.

Agreed.

P2. Only the physical exists.​
Physical effects require physical causes. Yes. But this in no way requires that all physical effects are physical. What about the "physical"? The non-physical exits either way. So we have a duality ladies and gentlemen.

Did you just write that?

Your entire modus operandi is making assumptions unstated in the premises!

The same can be said of yours.
 
Physical effects require physical causes. Yes. But this in no way requires that all physical effects are physical. What about the "physical"? The non-physical exits either way. So we have a duality ladies and gentlemen.
Unfortunately, "P2. Only the physical exists," entered my post by mistake.

That being said, your argument against that premise is very weak.
 
Unfortunately, "P2. Only the physical exists," entered my post by mistake.

That being said, your argument against that premise is very weak.

Agreed. However the point of my argument is that not only the physical exists. So does the non-physical. IN FACT, THE NON-PHYSICAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE PHYSICAL TO EXIST!!!
 
Agreed. However the point of my argument is that not only the physical exists. So does the non-physical. IN FACT, THE NON-PHYSICAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE PHYSICAL TO EXIST!!!
Yeah. Writing in all caps really makes me more likely to believe that you have no argument.
 
That is ridiculous.

Try this one:

T1: All unicorns require a horn.

That premise does not asserts these two things:
1. Unicorns exist
2. Horns exist​
Or even:

"P1. All foompa-loompas require a wazeewaa."

I don't think this premise establishes the existence of foompa-loompas or wazeewaas, other than as placeholder labels.
 
Spellbound:

James R said:
This thread has really exposed some holes in the ability of a couple of our prominent resident theists to reason things out.
Says who? Provide your evidence.
Er... I already said "This thread...".

The only love you display here is your love of judgement, so how could you possibly know?
I'd say it's more of an observation than a judgment.

You aren't even aware of the fact that Heaven exists!
If you have some evidence or argument for the existence of heaven, I'm all ears.
 
Back
Top