Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2013, 12:38 AM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Still waiting for a response (again). Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 04:17 AM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(05-02-2013 10:55 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Does a stationary object which begins to move have a cause?
Given enough time (admittedly more than has passed in the universe so far) it is possible for an object to leap from one place to another without any outside assistance.

For example, a diamond could jump out of a box on it's own, but it would take a very very long time for it do so. The smaller the box and the diamond the less time it will take.

Quantum physics is fun.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(06-02-2013 04:17 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 10:55 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Does a stationary object which begins to move have a cause?
Given enough time (admittedly more than has passed in the universe so far) it is possible for an object to leap from one place to another without any outside assistance.

For example, a diamond could jump out of a box on it's own, but it would take a very very long time for it do so. The smaller the box and the diamond the less time it will take.

Quantum physics is fun.

I believe that this has already occurred. How else could you get two onion rings looped through each other? QUANTUM MECHANICS BITCH

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Phaedrus's post
07-02-2013, 08:07 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2013 08:11 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(06-02-2013 12:38 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Still waiting for a response (again). Consider

A response to what?
This?

(03-02-2013 09:00 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(03-02-2013 08:12 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  You claim God is immaterial. *shrug*
Actually, it is theists who do so. Do you have a different view?

Of course I Censored well have a different view!!!
And I dont have to answer for the imaginary theist strawman you conjur up.
If you want to argue with theists who think God is always immaterial (whatever that means) off you go....run along.




A response to what?
This?

(03-02-2013 09:00 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I have never said that free will is non-matter; I stated that it's not a weighable material object. Furthermore, you still have to define (and establish the existence of) free will.

No. I do not HAVE TO do that.
I have the free will right to decide for myself if I want to. (Volition - a real word. Look it up)



A response to what?
This?

(03-02-2013 09:00 PM)Vosur Wrote:  ...Never have I said that god needs to appear conscious to me.

Good. There goes your argument. Bye.
You just conceded that you cant actually tell whether God is conscious because you arent aware of what He is doing at any given time. Your whole case fails because;

* You cant ever be sure if what you are looking at is actually God.
* You dont know if what you are looking at is God working or resting on the 7th day.
* And you admit that your argument (unlike Kalam) relies on your own personal belief about the nature of God's consciousness and materiality.

The Kalam argument does NOT depend on yours or my personal ideas about God. In fact, unlike your argument, Kalam doesnt assert any necessary qualities of God.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.


Do you see God mentioned anywhere in there?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 08:17 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(07-02-2013 08:07 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 12:38 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Still waiting for a response (again). Consider

A response to what?
This?

(03-02-2013 09:00 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Actually, it is theists who do so. Do you have a different view?

Of course I Censored well have a different view!!!
And I dont have to answer for the imaginary theist strawman you conjur up.
If you want to argue with theists who think God is always immaterial (whatever that means) off you go....run along.




A response to what?
This?

(03-02-2013 09:00 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I have never said that free will is non-matter; I stated that it's not a weighable material object. Furthermore, you still have to define (and establish the existence of) free will.

No. I do not HAVE TO do that.
I have the free will right to decide for myself if I want to. (Volition - a real word. Look it up)



A response to what?
This?

(03-02-2013 09:00 PM)Vosur Wrote:  ...Never have I said that god needs to appear conscious to me.

Good. There goes your argument. Bye.
You just conceded that you cant actually tell whether God is conscious because you arent aware of what He is doing at any given time. Your whole case fails because;

* You cant ever be sure if what you are looking at is actually God.
* You dont know if what you are looking at is God working or resting on the 7th day.
* And you admit that your argument (unlike Kalam) relies on your own personal belief about the nature of God's consciousness and materiality.

The Kalam argument does NOT depend on yours or my personal ideas about God. In fact, unlike your argument, Kalam doesnt assert any necessary qualities of God.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.


Do you see God mentioned anywhere in there?
Lion,

If we're still arguing at this stage, then it's because we have different premises. Or so I figure.

What Premises do you hold concerning Kalam...and which Premise(s) in your eyes seems to be the "troublemaker" as far as us Atheists are concerned?

Thanks.

Julius
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 08:18 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
P1: Consciousness requires material substance. (Define consciousness. Define material. Define substance.)

P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial. (Not until/unless you define God and can empirically observe Him in a conscious, immaterial state)


Still waiting Vosur! Tick, tock, tick, tock.................

[Image: tick_tock-300x295.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 08:23 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(07-02-2013 08:18 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  P1: Consciousness requires material substance. (Define consciousness. Define material. Define substance.)

P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial. (Not until/unless you define God and can empirically observe Him in a conscious, immaterial state)


Still waiting Vosur! Tick, tock, tick, tock.................

[Image: tick_tock-300x295.jpg]
Lion,

With all due respect, these are not the Premises of the Kalam Argument. Basically, the Premises of the Kalam Argument are as follows:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.

Thanks.

Julius
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 08:32 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2013 08:35 PM by Lion IRC.)
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
(07-02-2013 08:23 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(07-02-2013 08:18 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  P1: Consciousness requires material substance. (Define consciousness. Define material. Define substance.)

P2: The hypothesized god is immaterial. (Not until/unless you define God and can empirically observe Him in a conscious, immaterial state)


Still waiting Vosur! Tick, tock, tick, tock.................

[Image: tick_tock-300x295.jpg]
Lion,

With all due respect, these are not the Premises of the Kalam Argument. Basically, the Premises of the Kalam Argument are as follows:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.

Thanks.

Julius

Well done. You just repeated the Kalam premises that I posted 15 minutes ago in post #54

(07-02-2013 08:07 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  The Kalam argument does NOT depend on yours or my personal ideas about God. In fact, unlike your argument, Kalam doesnt assert any necessary qualities of God.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.


Do you see God mentioned anywhere in there?


Maybe you didnt read my post carefully enough.

But I read YOURS!


(03-02-2013 08:19 PM)Julius Wrote:  Debating Lion IRC is like a Monkey Humping a Cat: Lots of fur, fury, fangs and screaming - but nothing is produced by it.
So...Why do it?


Hypocrite! Angry

"...all due respect".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 08:36 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
Lion IRC,

Fuck yourself. Fuck you, and everyone who thinks like you.

You suck Dick. You have nothing useful to say.

Once Again....Fuck you.

Thanks.

Julius

PS. Go the Fuck Away....and stay there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 08:53 PM
RE: Kalam and the Cosmological Argument derail
[Image: DqqPR29.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: