Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

[spidergoat]

So you believe God doesn't exist?

jan.

Yes.

 

[Sarkus]

Of course He can. The argument states that...4

everything that begins to exist has a cause,
Thing: an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

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"?

As far as we know, these things begin to exist, and as we can see no God, as a physical being,
we cannot involve God in this, or the other two premises. Therefore the question is not being begged.

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 univcrse began to exist
the universe had a cause.
It is from the third premise we draw the conclusion that God is cause.
Basically an uncaused, beginningless, cause, was responsible for the universe.

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.

Earlier on I posted some attributes this cause had to have, and those attributes describe God.

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).

So yes, there was nothing (no thing) before the beginning of the cosmos, but it doesn't mean that God hasn't always been.

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.

Even if matter always existed, it didn't exist as uniformed nature we experience now.

And your support for this assertion is...?

The dictionary definition of everything states, that it is all things, plus, the current situation, life in general. Not the sum total of all existence.

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.

 

[Baldeee]

Because we want to experience like God, so God allows that to happen.

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!"

Because we totally reliant on God. Without God, there is no perception, no awareness.

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

We're living on a planet that is finely tuned for us. We have an abundance of food, water, and resources.

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 have the ability to know God, or deny Him (should we choose).

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

We can understand the greatness of God through art, science, religion, and philosophy.

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.

This is an ability we take for granted, without appreciating how we have obtained it.

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.

But if God does exist..;

And if god does not exist?

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

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?

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

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

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

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.

Be my quest.

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.

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

It is an ability some take for granted actually exists in the first place, without actually supporting that notion with valid and sound logic.

What are you talking about.

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

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And your support for this assertion is...?

Because the universe came into being.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

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

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

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.

 

[arfa brane]

That is so very wrong. Organisms can have all kind of neutral features, and even negative features, as long as these features have less of an impact on their fitness than their overall traits.

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

There is Occams razor - if you have two explanations, take the one which needs fewer new and/or additional concepts/entities whatever. This is not a 100% rule, but a surprising good one.

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.

So if I have two equivalent explanations, one which requires a god, and one which can explain the thing without a god, I'll take the one without a god.

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

PS: Evidence, as I mean it, must be testable and repeatable. It's not sufficient to say "I have seen". It must be possible to repeat the sight and test it. Otherwise it's just an empty phrase to me. Everone can claim "I have seen/experienced", it means nothing if the thing in question cannot be repeated and tested by other people.

That goes for your concoction also.

jan.

 

[arfa brane]

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).

 

[spidergoat]

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.

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

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.

What do we know?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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).

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.

 

[Sarkus]

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

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.

Because the universe came into being.

And your support for this assertion is...?

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

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).

Nope. I totally disagree with you.

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

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.

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.

 

[Sarkus]

God exists, and it is up to the denier to show that He doesn't.

Fallacy of shifting the burden.

The default position IS God exists.

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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...?

You support your assertions.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Fallacy of shifting the burden.

Yes I shifted it back to where it belonged.

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.

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

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

What do we know?

Not much, and yet you claim to know all.

 

[Sarkus]

You support your assertions.

Care to show where I haven't?

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.

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.

I'm not aware of any logical impossibilities. Just repeating that my arguments are invalid, does nothing to explain why they are invalid.

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.""

Your slight of hand trickery, shifting the goalposts of the definition of everything, has failed miserably. So what's your next trick?

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

The argument has been constructed logically. You have to show it invalidity, not expect me to.

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!"

Yes I shifted it back to where it belonged.

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

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

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.