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, 03:20 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2015 04:29 PM by Bucky Ball.)
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.

He picks and choses whom he debates. Mostly he talks for church groups, for mega-bucks. In his debate with Ehrman, he was outright dishonest, and some of his "tricks" are presented pretty fast, and no one has time to think about why they are false. He also won't generally answer questions in a hostile atmosphere. His "schtick" is pretty old now though. He hasn't come up with anything new for a long time.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
09-10-2015, 04:15 PM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
(09-10-2015 01:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 06:59 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  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".

It's a rebuttal you frequently present. I know we came up with it separately, also Unbeliever; in just this thread. The problem is not that it is not a good rebuttal, it is that one is not going to present it to the likes of WLC.

If I invest the time, money, and education into being a proficient debater, it ain't gonna be for the likes of him. Undecided

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
09-10-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
First let’s look at the Cosmological argument:

Incorporating Aristotle's notion of a "prime mover" into Summa Theological and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas famously formulated his version of the cosmological or "first cause" argument. According to this argument, the things which we see around us now are the products of a series of previous causes. But that series cannot go back in time forever. Thus there must be some first cause which was not itself caused by anything else. And that first uncaused cause is God.

The argument can be put more formally as follows:

1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.

There are several problems with this argument. The most crucial objection to the argument itself is that unless we know that premise 2 is true, the argument fails. If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, everything could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes—multiple gods, say—or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?" you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question—"Why is there something rather than nothing?"—remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists? This is the epitome of god-of-the-gaps argument. We don’t know…so….god.

One cannot state with any degree of validity that the first causal theory doesn't apply to the mythical egocentric Abrahamic god because one has the unique opinion he is the "eternal god", thus wasn't "caused". How does one arrive at that thought? How does one ascertain ones version of "god" is eternal? Which god by the way? There are so many, yet each fan club thinks their god is the only god, the true god and the only true religion. The irony of that kills me. 4500 different religions, all of which claim their god is the one, the truth and the light. Christianity alone has over 40,000 strains of their delusion, and each declares all others are not "true Christians".

The major premise of the argument, ""everything had a cause," is contradicted by the conclusion that "god did not have a cause." You can't have it both ways. If everything had to have had a cause, then there could not be a first cause. If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe.

Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that god is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove. If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe. The word "cause" is a transitive verb. Causality requires temporality. If god exists outside of time, he cannot cause anything.

The latest spin on this position by Christian philosophers like William Lane Craig is that:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This may be seductive to those who already believe in a god. To me, it seems awfully suspicious. The clause "Everything that begins to exist" sounds artificial. It is not a phrase we hear outside the context of theistic philosophy. It appears to be an Ad Hoc construction designed to smooth over earlier apologetic efforts.

Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
09-10-2015, 06:11 PM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
Without even looking at the premises, KCA has several major fallacies:

Composition.
Equivocation.
Special pleading.


And the version with "everything that begins to exist has a cause" the first premise, is guilty of affirming the consequent.

I used to understand why this argument was so attractive to theists. But now, I just can't understand why everyone with a couple pf spare brain cells, is unable to see the flaws.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Simon Moon's post
11-10-2015, 02:57 AM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
I've seen this beat to death many times now. An ounce of logic tells you that its bullshit. It's only affirming to a believer willing to suspend common sense and see what they want to see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2015, 03:12 AM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
(09-10-2015 06:11 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  I used to understand why this argument was so attractive to theists. But now, I just can't understand why everyone with a couple pf spare brain cells, is unable to see the flaws.

There's yer answer Tongue

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
11-10-2015, 03:55 AM
RE: The (Kalam) Cosmological Argument - I don't get it...?
There was this guy named kalam. He had all the answers. I mean everything. All the people gathered to hear him as he stood on the podium. He was just about to explain all the secrets of he universe when the gallows doors opened beneath him and snapped his neck and wrenched his spine out of place.

I mean seriously, just because he killed a pawnbroker's wife and was eventually caught?

Dostoyevski later wrote a book about it. But it missed out on life's secrets by just that much, you know?

Damn!

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: