First Cause, No Cause, Just Because
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-04-2013, 03:56 AM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2013 04:04 AM by raoul116.)
First Cause, No Cause, Just Because
A final (hopefully) rebuttal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I made a mistake, actually 2. I repeated the percentage of cosmologists being atheists in both segments and I said 'Thomas Aquinas around the 9th century - meant around the 13th century'. Sorry





"that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Christopher Hitchens
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes raoul116's post
26-04-2013, 04:39 AM
RE: First Cause, No Cause, Just Because
Many other things wrong with Craig's argument.

1. Even if you buy "First Cause", it's only "proximate cause". There is no reason, (in their world), an omnipotent god could not have made a race of machine, or alien, or whatever, Universe Makers, or that there could not be layers of causes. He, with no explanation, assumes there is only one cause, and it just happens to be his god. First Cause is only Proximate, or "closest" or "nearest" cause.
2. His statement that it is a "personal god" in this tape, is actually a linguistic non sequitur. He makes an assertion which does not follow from it's premise, in the sentence. He does so with no reason given. Just an unsupported assertion.
3. He also, as they all do, assumes or uses words which require the prior existence of a temporal environment, BEFORE space-time was (supposedly) "created". In other words, he says the cause is "intelligent". Intelligence is a process. That requires time. To say anything that requires time before time was created, is meaningless. (Craig knows this, and in many other places, including very recently, in January in Scotland,, tries to explain it away. He never has done so, satisfactorily).
4. The entire argument is built on the assumption that the universe "must" follow what appears or seems to be "logical" to human brains, ie that it is "intuitive". We know from Relativity, Uncertainty, and the complex math (matricies of Dirac spinors), that is not the case. One cannot assume that anything *has* to be what appears to us to be "logical", especially when dealing with the quantum level.
5. First Cause also assumes "Causality" in place. That is, that first comes an intention to make a universe, then the beginning of the action of creation, then the completion of the act. The question is not "where did the universe come from ?" The real question is, "how, without time, (needed for the ordering of "intelligent" Causality), and Causality a priori, in place. did Causality get caused, and how did THAT happen ?" He never even attempts to answer that. He "special pleads" it away, and says his god is "timeless", then proceeds to use only verbs and words which require a temporal dimension. He's just a Presuppositionalist clown, out to make money.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-04-2013, 05:03 AM
RE: First Cause, No Cause, Just Because
Well, you fucked that up. Whatever you're trying to sell, I ain't listening through WLC to figure it out. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 05:13 AM
RE: First Cause, No Cause, Just Because
I don't agree with HouseofCantor. I very much appreciate the fact that you quoted WLC entirely and in context before rebutting. BuckyBall does make much finer points, but there's nothing wrong with your arguments, either. Plus, I think you're good on video -- it didn't appear that you were reading (though you were probably looking at notes when you look down), you had good inflection, and you showed passion. It's good stuff.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 05:18 AM
RE: First Cause, No Cause, Just Because
(26-04-2013 05:13 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  I don't agree with HouseofCantor.

That's 'cause you're a poopyhead. Tongue

Kinda how I know evolution is true. Seeing WLC regresses me into a shit-throwing arm-ripping monkey. Big Grin

And! There's no point to it. Not like it's possible to change his mind. Anything anybody brings to his attention is manipulated to his purpose or ignored, and his groupies only hear his half of the debate.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
26-04-2013, 06:08 AM
RE: First Cause, No Cause, Just Because
(26-04-2013 04:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Many other things wrong with Craig's argument.

1. Even if you buy "First Cause", it's only "proximate cause". There is no reason, (in their world), an omnipotent god could not have made a race of machine, or alien, or whatever, Universe Makers, or that there could not be layers of causes. He, with no explanation, assumes there is only one cause, and it just happens to be his god. First Cause is only Proximate, or "closest" or "nearest" cause.
2. His statement that it is a "personal god" in this tape, is actually a linguistic non sequitur. He makes an assertion which does not follow from it's premise, in the sentence. He does so with no reason given. Just an unsupported assertion.
3. He also, as they all do, assumes or uses words which require the prior existence of a temporal environment, BEFORE space-time was (supposedly) "created". In other words, he says the cause is "intelligent". Intelligence is a process. That requires time. To say anything that requires time before time was created, is meaningless. (Craig knows this, and in many other places, including very recently, in January in Scotland,, tries to explain it away. He never has done so, satisfactorily).
4. The entire argument is built on the assumption that the universe "must" follow what appears or seems to be "logical" to human brains, ie that it is "intuitive". We know from Relativity, Uncertainty, and the complex math (matricies of Dirac spinors), that is not the case. One cannot assume that anything *has* to be what appears to us to be "logical", especially when dealing with the quantum level.
5. First Cause also assumes "Causality" in place. That is, that first comes an intention to make a universe, then the beginning of the action of creation, then the completion of the act. The question is not "where did the universe come from ?" The real question is, "how, without time, (needed for the ordering of "intelligent" Causality), and Causality a priori, in place. did Causality get caused, and how did THAT happen ?" He never even attempts to answer that. He "special pleads" it away, and says his god is "timeless", then proceeds to use only verbs and words which require a temporal dimension. He's just a Presuppositionalist clown, out to make money.

Thanks Bucky for the additional observations which are so true. There was really so much I could've argued regarding Craig's modus operandi but that would have drove me right off the track of the original intent of the vid - the kca. But he really is a trickster of sorts - the more I watch him in action, the more I learn about his style of debating which is scripted from start to finish. He is incapable of going off script and this was verified recently by a British person whose name I can't remember. He said he wanted to have a polite discussion with Craig regarding their differences but Craig's 'handlers' would have nothing to do with this method. They insisted that he debate Craig on the apologist's terms so the debate never occurred. It begs the question - if Craig is so sure he has the truth on his side, especially god belief, why isn't he willing to 'go out on faith' and debate accordingly? LOL

"that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Christopher Hitchens
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 06:28 AM
RE: First Cause, No Cause, Just Because
(26-04-2013 05:13 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  I don't agree with HouseofCantor. I very much appreciate the fact that you quoted WLC entirely and in context before rebutting. BuckyBall does make much finer points, but there's nothing wrong with your arguments, either. Plus, I think you're good on video -- it didn't appear that you were reading (though you were probably looking at notes when you look down), you had good inflection, and you showed passion. It's good stuff.

Thanks Starcrash especially for your comments about the technical aspects of the video. I've been working on trying to make my presentations more professional probably because more and more non-theists are joining me in the fight over at YouTube. For every hour I spend developing a video, i probably spend 4 or 5 times that debating various theists on message threads which are part of Hitchens or Dawkins debates. The war goes on!

"that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Christopher Hitchens
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 06:29 AM
RE: First Cause, No Cause, Just Because
(26-04-2013 05:18 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 05:13 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  I don't agree with HouseofCantor.

That's 'cause you're a poopyhead. Tongue

Kinda how I know evolution is true. Seeing WLC regresses me into a shit-throwing arm-ripping monkey. Big Grin

And! There's no point to it. Not like it's possible to change his mind. Anything anybody brings to his attention is manipulated to his purpose or ignored, and his groupies only hear his half of the debate.
The purpose of my work is not to change anyone's mind as much as it is to encourage those on our side of the fence to speak out more and more. That's the only way we're going to bring this country into the 21st century of enlightenment.

"that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Christopher Hitchens
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes raoul116's post
26-04-2013, 06:54 AM
RE: First Cause, No Cause, Just Because
(26-04-2013 06:29 AM)raoul116 Wrote:  
(26-04-2013 05:18 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  That's 'cause you're a poopyhead. Tongue

Kinda how I know evolution is true. Seeing WLC regresses me into a shit-throwing arm-ripping monkey. Big Grin

And! There's no point to it. Not like it's possible to change his mind. Anything anybody brings to his attention is manipulated to his purpose or ignored, and his groupies only hear his half of the debate.
The purpose of my work is not to change anyone's mind as much as it is to encourage those on our side of the fence to speak out more and more. That's the only way we're going to bring this country into the 21st century of enlightenment.

And here I was thinking enlightenment is only gonna come by piling alla darkness in a hole... starting with WLC. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2013, 09:12 PM
RE: First Cause, No Cause, Just Because
By coincidence, I was going to make the "first cause" nonsense the subject of my first video on my alternate YT channel. I'm just terrible at speaking to a mic, and have no sense of how to work video editing software... I grew up with computers but it's something I never learned.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: