The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2015, 09:37 AM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
First you deploy Kalaam to make a shitty case for the existence of *a* God.

Then you play silly buggers with theology to make a shitty case for *the* God being Jehovah.

It doesn't matter that the argument's shit, it has to be *just* complicated enough to make knee-jerk sense to the average twit, and the rest is just pageantry. Making it *look* like you are a high-level philosopher ™ who argues with other clever-and-sincere-but-deluded-philosophers.

How do we know they are deluded you ask? Because the light of Jesus does not shine in their heathen hearts. The only reason they debate in the first place is to make excuses so that they can sin. Deep down they know they're wrong.

Facepalm I just made myself facepalm...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
09-10-2015, 10:19 AM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
(09-10-2015 06:27 AM)johanneswiberg Wrote:  So, I often see the Cosmological Argument (Kalam or other versions) to be regarded as the strongest argument for a deity - that is, the need for a cause. I just don't get why this is in any way a reasonable argument.

That would be because it's not, for pretty much precisely the reasons you point out. I've said the same thing in multiple discussions with theists on this very site.

For some reason, it never seems to sink in.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
09-10-2015, 10:42 AM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
Thanks everyone for your responses. I made sure to say that the cosmological argument is an argument for a deity, not Jehovah or even theism, because of the very reasons you put forth.
My problem is that if you read on various secular and philosophical blogs on the net, you often find the cosmological argument discussed as if it is a pretty valid argument - and even if several refutations are put forward, I just find the one I made above so much simpler and easier to understand, and I can't see how you could disagree with it. Why didn't anyone use it in a debate against WLC? How that man can do so well in debates despite his absolutely worthless reasoning is beyond me, it's as if he puts a spell on almost anyone he debates which make them skip their A game, while he himself uses clever but foul debate tactics to "win" the debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like johanneswiberg's post
09-10-2015, 11:48 AM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
My question would then be why would anyone debate WLC? Undecided

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.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
09-10-2015, 01:17 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2015 03:14 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
(09-10-2015 06:59 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 06:27 AM)johanneswiberg Wrote:  I often see the cosmological argument debated but I can't remember I've heard this very simple argument against it - am I missing something??

Yeah, Bucky. Angel

No you're not missing anything. It's as dumb as you think it is. What hoc means (I think), is "Yeah, you're exactly right". As Dr. Carroll says in the video, (and I've always said to counter the preposterous nonsense of Kalam), is that it presumes far too much, and exactly what you said. Although you are the ONLY person ever (congrats, BTW Tongue ) to come here and take it that far. Kalam explains nothing. They have a sample of one, with the "priors" not applying, necessarily (to this universe). It's not the universe that needs explaining, it's "Causality" itself. How does Causality get "caused" (as a principle) unless it's already in place, as part of the structure of Reality. It also presumes the universe is "intuitive" ... that what appears to be "logically correct" on the human scale, is the way the universe works. It isn't, and there are many examples of that (Relativity, Uncertainty and some math, for starters).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 01:44 PM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
(09-10-2015 06:27 AM)johanneswiberg Wrote:  The first line is "everything that begins to exist has a cause".
This line lumps in an unknown quantity and tries to make it seem just like a known quantity. The logical fallacy is known as conflation.

A chair doesn't make itself, it begins to exist because a human makes it.
A baby doesn't make itself, it begins because its parents copulate.

This is very different to the situation of the energy and matter of our universe beginning to exist.

The law of conservation says that it is impossible to create or destroy energy.
So are we sure that energy began to exist?
We know the expansion of our universe had a beginning, but was the energy already there prior to the beginning of expansion?

Anyway, making a chair or a baby is just a reconfiguration of existing materials which is very different to the "creation" of energy/matter from nothing. These can't be honestly lumped together. The cosmological argument is a dishonest argument and fails logically.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
(09-10-2015 11:48 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  My question would then be why would anyone debate WLC? Undecided

Seriously. I don't think I'd be even remotely capable of remaining non-violent in his presence. Seriously, he is such a dishonest fuckwit. He continues to use idiotic arguments despite them being shown for what they are on multiple occasions. It's because he knows that the idiots that look up to him are so fucking brainwashed they still think he's brilliant.

Just search "william lane craig destroys ___" on youtube and you'll find video after video of theists claiming he wins debates he very clearly gets destroyed in.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes itsnotmeitsyou's post
09-10-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
(09-10-2015 01:56 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 11:48 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  My question would then be why would anyone debate WLC? Undecided

Just search "william lane craig destroys ___" on youtube and you'll find video after video of theists claiming he wins debates he very clearly gets destroyed in.

That is the very reason why a really well equipped debater ought to debate him. I'm not saying it's a glorious task, far from it, but all those videos do have a point: he has superior debating skills - dishonest sneaky ones, yes, but if someone who really knows these tactics and come prepared to meet his specific arguments on his terms, he could be beaten on his own home turf. Now we argue that he gets destroyed while his fans argue the opposite, but he doesn't deserve that. He could as I said easily be beaten once and for all if that was the aim of his opponent. Harris' and Hitchens' aim wasn't that specific, and Craig could use his old moronic tactics to make his fans believe him the "winner". I'd love for that trend to be broken.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes johanneswiberg's post
09-10-2015, 02:15 PM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
(09-10-2015 02:09 PM)johanneswiberg Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 01:56 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Just search "william lane craig destroys ___" on youtube and you'll find video after video of theists claiming he wins debates he very clearly gets destroyed in.

That is the very reason why a really well equipped debater ought to debate him. I'm not saying it's a glorious task, far from it, but all those videos do have a point: he has superior debating skills - dishonest sneaky ones, yes, but if someone who really knows these tactics and come prepared to meet his specific arguments on his terms, he could be beaten on his own home turf. Now we argue that he gets destroyed while his fans argue the opposite, but he doesn't deserve that. He could as I said easily be beaten once and for all if that was the aim of his opponent. Harris' and Hitchens' aim wasn't that specific, and Craig could use his old moronic tactics to make his fans believe him the "winner". I'd love for that trend to be broken.

I think you underestimate the power of indoctrination. It doesn't matter how good your arguments are, people who already believe the absolutely insane shit that craig spews are too far gone to win them over with clever debates.

Seriously, these people honestly believe the world is younger than several organisms that are still alive. Debating people like that is pointless.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like itsnotmeitsyou's post
09-10-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
(09-10-2015 02:09 PM)johanneswiberg Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 01:56 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Just search "william lane craig destroys ___" on youtube and you'll find video after video of theists claiming he wins debates he very clearly gets destroyed in.

That is the very reason why a really well equipped debater ought to debate him. I'm not saying it's a glorious task, far from it, but all those videos do have a point: he has superior debating skills - dishonest sneaky ones, yes, but if someone who really knows these tactics and come prepared to meet his specific arguments on his terms, he could be beaten on his own home turf. Now we argue that he gets destroyed while his fans argue the opposite, but he doesn't deserve that. He could as I said easily be beaten once and for all if that was the aim of his opponent. Harris' and Hitchens' aim wasn't that specific, and Craig could use his old moronic tactics to make his fans believe him the "winner". I'd love for that trend to be broken.

Ever notice WLC ALWAYS goes first in a debate? Why do you think that is? It's because he insists on it, including many other stipulations like a favorable location, time constraints, etc. Why? Because he then uses a tactic on the level of a high school debate team by altering the topic of the debate to something he can manipulate, forcing his opponent to do one of two things: spend his 10 minutes refuting the BS that WLC just pulled, thus surrendering his 10 minutes and playing defense for the rest of the night, or he can go ahead with his prepared 10 minutes that actually addresses the subject, and then will be subjected to WLC's underhanded cries of foul, accusing his opponent of not addressing the points he brought up, and declaring his victory. It's something that ignorant audiences and inexperienced debaters fall for and is why so many theists believe this guy wins. It's manipulative and unprofessional at best.

The kalam is easily refutable, I've done it, you've done it, even the birds and bees to it.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: