The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Lord Emsworth]

Let me get this thing straight.

At first there is just God, an timeless something. And then tick-tock, tick-tock ... This God makes the universe begin to exist. Tick-tock, tick-tock.


Face it, the only sensible theological position is that there is no time for any creation-coming-into-existence shenanigans. God and its creation are timeless and eternal. Anything else is just confusion.

 

[Davian]

The point of the matter, and my concluding remarks regarding the thread as a whole is this:

1. The metaphysical principle of causality is substantiated by our intuitive awareness that
things do not just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing, and is further verified by our everyday experiences.

2. To maintain any position other than this is to maintain that something can just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing. To do so is to quit doing serious metaphysics. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you have the magician, the hat, and the rabbit! Denying the plausibility of the causal principle would be like maintenaning that a rabbit could just pop into existence uncaused out of thin air, sans magician, sans hat, sans anything!

3. The universe exists and we know that it is not eternal for several good reasons. These reasons are both scientific and philosophic in nature.

4. The Standard Model of the universe presents a very clear picture of all of material reality I.e. time, space, matter, and energy coming into existence from literally no prior material cause.

5. This Cause is best explained from the pool of live options as One who is immaterial, non-spatial and timeless. Out of the pool of live options that fit the proceeding criteria, God is the best explanation.

6. Therefore God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.

7. This is a conclusion that is acceptable as true beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what is required to make the argument a valid argument for the existence of God.

8. For any that do not agree with the above, you must either:

a. Maintain that you do not know, I.e. that you are agnostic and withhold judgment on the matter.

b. Present good reasons why God is not the best explanation for the origin of the universe and build a case for whatever cause you wish to defend as best.

c. Maintain that the universe does not need a cause for its existence and build a good case as to why it does not.

d. Maintain that you do not care about the matter at all.

I will not be responding to any counter arguments which I have already addressed in the proceeding posts.

And what of the counter arguments in the preceding posts that you never addressed?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The point of the matter, and my concluding remarks regarding the thread as a whole is this:

1. The metaphysical principle of causality is substantiated by our intuitive awareness that
things do not just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing, and is further verified by our everyday experiences.

2. To maintain any position other than this is to maintain that something can just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing. To do so is to quit doing serious metaphysics. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you have the magician, the hat, and the rabbit! Denying the plausibility of the causal principle would be like maintenaning that a rabbit could just pop into existence uncaused out of thin air, sans magician, sans hat, sans anything!

3. The universe exists and we know that it is not eternal for several good reasons. These reasons are both scientific and philosophic in nature.

4. The Standard Model of the universe presents a very clear picture of all of material reality I.e. time, space, matter, and energy coming into existence from literally no prior material cause.

5. This Cause is best explained from the pool of live options as One who is immaterial, non-spatial and timeless. Out of the pool of live options that fit the proceeding criteria, God is the best explanation.

6. Therefore God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.

7. This is a conclusion that is acceptable as true beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what is required to make the argument a valid argument for the existence of God.

8. For any that do not agree with the above, you must either:

a. Maintain that you do not know, I.e. that you are agnostic and withhold judgment on the matter.

b. Present good reasons why God is not the best explanation for the origin of the universe and build a case for whatever cause you wish to defend as best.

c. Maintain that the universe does not need a cause for its existence and build a good case as to why it does not.

d. Maintain that you do not care about the matter at all.

I will not be responding to any counter arguments which I have already addressed in the proceeding posts.

A repetition of the same argument? Why?

 

[Gracchus]

The point of the matter, and my concluding remarks regarding the thread as a whole is this:

1. The metaphysical principle of causality is substantiated by our intuitive awareness that things do not just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing, and is further verified by our everyday experiences.

Our brains have a "goldilocks zone" of situations that we evolved to deal with. If we try to deal with things that are too large, like cosmology or deep time, or too small, like particle physics, or demonstrably real, but counter-intuitive phenomena, like those of quantum mechanics, then intuition, a sort of shortcut of thought useful when dealing quickly with familiar situations, does not do a good job. These un-intuitive phenomena we must address by careful analysis.

2. To maintain any position other than this is to maintain that something can just pop into existence uncaused out of nothing.

This happens all the time in a "perfect vacuum". An atomic nucleus is like a BB-shot in a colosseum and the electrons like very tiny gnats. Even protons and neutrons are mostly "empty space" and most of their observed mass is actually "empty space". You see, a perfect vacuum is actually full of particles popping in and out of existence. A perfect vacuum has mass, and there is no such thing as nothing.

To do so is to quit doing serious metaphysics.

Metaphysics deals with things unreal, and until it can formulate useful hypotheses that can make testable predictions, it is less useful than astrology, which can at least be falsified.

When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you have the magician, the hat, and the rabbit! Denying the plausibility of the causal principle would be like maintenaning that a rabbit could just pop into existence uncaused out of thin air, sans magician, sans hat, sans anything!

Indeed! It would be even sans observer and so pop out of existence before even the rabbit noticed.

3. The universe exists and we know that it is not eternal for several good reasons. These reasons are both scientific and philosophic in nature.

Can you explain the nature of time well enough to rule out eternity? I would suggest that you understand neither.

4. The Standard Model of the universe presents a very clear picture of all of material reality I.e. time, space, matter, and energy coming into existence from literally no prior material cause.

I would not say it presents a "clear picture". It is fuzzed by quantum uncertainty.

5. This Cause is best explained from the pool of live options as One who is immaterial, non-spatial and timeless.

"... immaterial, non-spatial and timeless ..."? That is a pretty good approximation of nothing at all.

Out of the pool of live options that fit the proceeding criteria, God is the best explanation.

You have just defined "God" as non-existent. And so he is! He told me so himself!

6. Therefore God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.

No hat, no magician, no observer ... I thought you were saying that could not happen!

7. This is a conclusion that is acceptable as true beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what is required to make the argument a valid argument for the existence of God.

It might be acceptable to a mind unable to reason, to a mind afraid, terrified of the immensity and mystery of reality. When you consider God, anything but doubt is unreasonable. In fact, anything but doubt is idolatry.

8. For any that do not agree with the above, you must either:

Actually, I don't have to anything. I certainly don't have to do anything. But I will point out the flaws and contradictions in your arguments.

a. Maintain that you do not know, I.e. that you are agnostic and withhold judgment on the matter.

There are certainly lots of things I don't know, but your arguments are flawed by the falsified absurdities that you do know.

b. Present good reasons why God is not the best explanation for the origin of the universe and build a case for whatever cause you wish to defend as best.

It turns out that your "God" is a great big blob of ignorance which you have filled with fantasy.

c. Maintain that the universe does not need a cause for its existence and build a good case as to why it does not.

The observable universe is one thing. We like to arbitrarily divide it up into things and phenomena, but it is one complete and perfect thing. This fictional semantic division gives rise to the illusion of cause and effect. If Schroedinger's cat walks past a slit in the fence you would probably maintain that the head caused the tail.

d. Maintain that you do not care about the matter at all.

Well, I did care enough to respond.

I will not be responding to any counter arguments which I have already addressed in the proceeding posts.

Thank you! Your reponses have been metaphysical and theological which is to say, based on premises that are not real and contradictory and your reasoning, operating on fantasies can produce no meaningful results corresponding to testable reality. No need to repeat yourself. Can you come up with anything new?

 

[KCfromNC]

In a practical sense, the link between philosophy and science is definitely forgotten. Arguably this is necessary. If scientists were always worried about the philosophical problems implicit in their work then they would never get any science done and would instead be philosophers.

Yes, exactly. While philosophy and science may have similar roots, modern scientific study rejected a lot of what makes philosophy philosophy in an effort to actually get stuff done. Despite the shared history, a scientist studying modern notions of philosophy won't really help them do science as it works today. It's even true for the philosophy of science - why study second hand accounts of someone watching scientists work when they do the real thing everyday at their job?

 

[Gadarene]

It's good to know the history of science, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily beholden to anything and everything that's emerged from that field since.

 

[KCfromNC]

Science presupposes certain philosophical principles in order for it to even be feasible as a means of understanding reality.

So does everything else, including philosophy. By this argument, before one can do philosophy one must do philosophy, making philosophy impossible. Thus the idea collapses upon itself as metaphysically self-refuting.

That's what happens when you play games with the word philosophy. Equivocation isn't about riding horses you know.

 

[Gadarene]

Equivocation isn't about riding horses you know.

No, it's about working two jobs.

 

[Elioenai26]

A repetition of the same argument? Why?

There is an old southern adage that goes something like this:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

[Danyc]

There is an old southern adage that goes something like this:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

A terrible way to think for anyone who wants to make real progress in this world.

 

[Elioenai26]

So does everything else, including philosophy. By this argument, before one can do philosophy one must do philosophy, making philosophy impossible. Thus the idea collapses upon itself as metaphysically self-refuting.

That's what happens when you play games with the word philosophy. Equivocation isn't about riding horses you know.

No, it's about working two jobs.

The fallacy of equivocation is committed when one uses a word in the same context with two different meanings.


For example:


1. Socrates was Greek
2. Greek is a language
3. Therefore Socarates is a language


Equivocating on the meaning of the word "Greek" here in the syllogism is a fallacy of equivocation. In premise one, the word Greek is used to denote an ethnicity or nationality. In two, it is used to denote a language.

I have no where in my discussions on how philosophy and science relate, equivocated on the word "philosophy". If your charge of equivocation was made in a formal argument in a debate, you would be guilty of what is known as committing the "strawman" fallacy. You have accused me of equivocating, something I have not done and something you therefore conjured up in your own mind, to discredit my point about philosophy and how it relates to science. So in accusing me of committing a fallacy, you have actually committed one which is undeniable!

Since this is not a formal argument in a debate but rather an amicable discussion, I shall simply say your charge is groundless and leave it at that.

 

[Davian]

No, I take the scientific approach. You are the one claiming that these truths are knowable. Prove it. (Since you are the one claiming that these truths can be known, you should be able to prove it).

Your cosmological argument, as you have presented it below. How can you prove that it applies before and at the instantiation of the cosmos?

Not the argument - *you*. You are working backwards through this whole thing from the conclusion, deity that you already believe to exist. This is not science (obviously, which is why it is called apologetics, lol).

As for those attributes:

- sounds like 'non-existant', unless you can describe this thing by what it is, rather than by what it isn't. You have not done so. Self-Existent? Nice try. Is not the universe self-existent?

- define what 'outside' of the universe means
- if it it outside, how does it get inside?

- why must it be? Is there any indication that the cosmos is infinite?

- what is the apparent total of energy in the universe? What if it is zero?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?

- provide details on what choices were available to this supposed deity. Perhaps there were no, or few choices. How much intelligence was needed? Show why this required a 'deity'.

- choice implies change, and time. How does a timeless 'entity' make a choice?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?


Really? Where's he been recently? Keeping low, is he?

But you 'know' you are not just imagining.

How is a living person inside of you? Nevermind, I don't need details.

So how do you avoid being lumped in with the people that know that they are Napoleon or know that they have been abducted by extraterrestrials?

Guilty as charged, I see.

All of it. Is it literal or not? Did the writers of the bible get the details right or not?

Elioenai26, am I to assume that you will not be addressing my questions?


This is not true. Stanford University has a detailed dismantling of the cosmological argument that dates back to 2004.

Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And what of the counter arguments in the preceding posts that you never addressed?

There is an old southern adage that goes something like this:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

If it ain't broke, why don't it work?

 

[Elioenai26]

If it ain't broke, why don't it work?

Because you do not understand what it is and therefore are unable to use it correctly.

If you take a Brillo pad and try to wash your car with it, you might ask: "Dang, why is this not working? It seems to be scraping the paint off my car instead of cleaning it."

You might want to try and learn what the purpose of a Brillo pad is before using it.

I also do not understand why you desire to continue talking about "God", when the word "God", has no meaning to you.

If you wish to enter into a formal debate with me, then I shall love to do so, but I will not be answering any more of your questions, because according to your own view, they really are rather pointless.

 

[Davian]

If it ain't broke, why don't it work?

Because you do not understand what it is and therefore are unable to use it correctly.

If you take a Brillo pad and try to wash your car with it, you might ask: "Dang, why is this not working? It seems to be scraping the paint off my car instead of cleaning it."

You might want to try and learn what the purpose of a Brillo pad is before using it.

You are using WLC's material, and his intent is to convert. You have brought this to the Philosophy forum, not Exploring Christianity. In contradiction to that, you say that it was not your intent to convert anyone. What then is the purpose of apologetics posted here?

I also do not understand why you desire to continue talking about "God", when the word "God", has no meaning to you.

That is in contradiction to my previous responses to you on that subject.

And, we were talking about the cosmological argument, not "God", until you pulled that into the conversation, prompting other questions from myself, which you have yet to address.

If you wish to enter into a formal debate with me, then I shall love to do so, but I will not be answering any more of your questions, because according to your own view, they really are rather pointless.

What is my "view", exactly?

Is it not addressed by WLC's material?

I take your debate offer as seriously as I would from anyone claiming to be able to falsify germ theory, gravitational theory, and evolutionary theory, to mention a few, all in a short series of posts in an internet forum.

As for not answering my questions, you are already doing that.

 

[Elioenai26]

You are using WLC's material,

The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a First Cause for the universe. Its origins can be traced to medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most directly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition. Its historic proponents include John Philoponus, Al-Kindi, Saadia Gaon, Al-Ghazali, and St. Bonaventure. A prominent contemporary Western proponent is William Lane Craig.

The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and this First Cause must be God. It is also applied by the Spiritist doctrine as the main argument for the existence of God.

The Kalām argument was named after the Kalām tradition of Islamic discursive philosophy through which it was first formulated. In Arabic, the word Kalām means "words, discussion, discourse."
The cosmological argument was first introduced by Aristotle and later refined by Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). In Western Europe, it was adopted by the Christian theologian and Saint of the Roman Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas. Another form of this argument is based on the concept of a prime-mover; this Aristotelian form of the argument was also propounded by Averroes. The premise is that every motion must be caused by another motion, and the earlier motion must in turn be a result of another motion and so on. The conclusion thus follows that there must be an initial prime-mover, a mover that could cause motion without any other mover. One of the earliest formations of the Kalām argument comes from Al-Ghazali, who wrote, "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning." (Wikipedia bold mine)



So you see Davian, while the KCA is indeed championed by Dr. Craig, it in no way originated with him and cannot be tuthfully said to be his original work. He has refined it and elaborated on it and offered arguments to proposed objections to it. It is also commonly used by many Christian apologists besides Dr. Craig as well.

and his intent is to convert.

Per the mission statement found on www.reasonablefaith.org :

About Reasonable Faith

Our Mission


Reasonable Faith aims to provide in the public arena an intelligent, articulate, and uncompromising yet gracious Christian perspective on the most important issues concerning the truth of the Christian faith today, such as:

• the existence of God
• the meaning of life
• the objectivity of truth
• the foundation of moral values
• the creation of the universe
• intelligent design
• the reliability of the Gospels
• the uniqueness of Jesus
• the historicity of the resurrection
• the challenge of religious pluralism

Reasonable Faith features the work of philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig in order to carry out its three-fold mission:

• to provide an articulate, intelligent voice for biblical Christianity in the public arena.
• to challenge unbelievers with the truth of biblical Christianity.
• to train Christians to state and defend Christian truth claims with greater effectiveness.

His mission primarily is to show that Christianity is very reasonable, rational, and in no way contradictory to the disciplines of science and philosophy. He does so by using science and philosophy to provide good evidence and arguments for the existence of God.​

You have brought this to the Philosophy forum, not Exploring Christianity. In contradiction to that, you say that it was not your intent to convert anyone. What then is the purpose of apologetics posted here?

The KCA is a deductive syllogistic philosophical argument for the existence of a Creator of the Cosmos.

That is why I have posted it in the philosophy forum. Me posting the KCA here in this forum is in no way contradictory to my statement of my intention here. My intention is still not to convert anyone from anything to anything else. My intention is to show, by deductive philosophical argumentation, that the best explanation for the existence of the universe is that God created it ex nihilo. This is supported by the KCA.

Many apologetical works are philosophical in nature. And as such, they are definently not "off limits" to a philosophy forum on a Christian Forum Website!

You also fail to understand that this argument is used primarily to show non-Christians evidence for the existence of God, and as such, is best posted here in this specific forum.

And, we were talking about the cosmological argument, not "God", until you pulled that into the conversation, prompting other questions from myself, which you have yet to address.

The KCA was configured to logically point to the conclusion that the universe has a cause for it's existence outside of itself. Give whatever name you wish to to this "Cause", but the argument logically concludes that this Cause must exist.

If you want to call it the Uncaused Cause, Unmoved Mover, God, Supreme Being, etc. etc., call the Cause what you will. They are all synonymous.

What is my "view", exactly?

If you are a theological noncognitivist, that means that any discussion of God is ultimately meaningless.

In a nutshell, a theological noncognitivist claims: 1. "God" does not refer to anything that exists. 2. "God" does not refer to anything that does not exist. 3. "God" does not refer to something that may or may not exist. 4. "God" has no literal significance, just as "Fod" has no literal significance.
Theological noncognitivism can be argued in different ways, depending on one's theory of meaning. Michael Martin, writing from a verificationist perspective, concludes that religious language is meaningless because it is not verifiable. This, however is based on logical positivism, which is now considered a dead philosophy since its verification principle is itself not verifiable. (Wikipedia)

Is it not addressed by WLC's material?

Yes, Dr. Craig addresses your views in some of his work.

I take your debate offer as seriously as I would from anyone claiming to be able to falsify germ theory, gravitational theory, and evolutionary theory, to mention a few, all in a short series of posts in an internet forum.

1. When have I ever said that I can falsify germ theory, gravitational theory, and evolutionary theory in a short series of posts on an internet forum?

2. Even if I did say that I could do all of the above, what does that have to do with you accepting my invitation to debate on the topic: "Does God Exist?"

3. You are insinuating that my offer to engage in a formal debate with you is something that should not be taken seriously. Well now, in order for that to be more than just your opinion, you will have to build a good argument as to why I am not serious regarding the invitation.

4. If I were to have made some outlandish assertions that you believe would be easily shown to be fallacious, then it seems to me that you would be eager to engage in a formal debate and highlight those fallacies and outlandish claims, and thereby expose me as an incapable apologist.

5. I offer a serious invitation to you to engage in a formal debate.

 

[Davian]

The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a First Cause for the universe. Its origins can be traced to medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most directly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition. Its historic proponents include John Philoponus, Al-Kindi, Saadia Gaon, Al-Ghazali, and St. Bonaventure. A prominent contemporary Western proponent is William Lane Craig.

The basic premise of all of these is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and this First Cause must be God. It is also applied by the Spiritist doctrine as the main argument for the existence of God.

The Kalām argument was named after the Kalām tradition of Islamic discursive philosophy through which it was first formulated. In Arabic, the word Kalām means "words, discussion, discourse."
The cosmological argument was first introduced by Aristotle and later refined by Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). In Western Europe, it was adopted by the Christian theologian and Saint of the Roman Catholic Church, Thomas Aquinas. Another form of this argument is based on the concept of a prime-mover; this Aristotelian form of the argument was also propounded by Averroes. The premise is that every motion must be caused by another motion, and the earlier motion must in turn be a result of another motion and so on. The conclusion thus follows that there must be an initial prime-mover, a mover that could cause motion without any other mover. One of the earliest formations of the Kalām argument comes from Al-Ghazali, who wrote, "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning." (Wikipedia bold mine)



So you see Davian, while the KCA is indeed championed by Dr. Craig, it in no way originated with him and cannot be tuthfully said to be his original work. He has refined it and elaborated on it and offered arguments to proposed objections to it. It is also commonly used by many Christian apologists besides Dr. Craig as well.

You have specifically referenced WLC's material. Did you pay for any of that? Yes or no?

Per the mission statement found on www.reasonablefaith.org :

About Reasonable Faith

Our Mission

Reasonable Faith aims to provide in the public arena an intelligent, articulate, and uncompromising yet gracious Christian perspective on the most important issues concerning the truth of the Christian faith today, such as:

• the existence of God
• the meaning of life
• the objectivity of truth
• the foundation of moral values
• the creation of the universe
• intelligent design
• the reliability of the Gospels
• the uniqueness of Jesus
• the historicity of the resurrection
• the challenge of religious pluralism

Reasonable Faith features the work of philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig in order to carry out its three-fold mission:

• to provide an articulate, intelligent voice for biblical Christianity in the public arena.
• to challenge unbelievers with the truth of biblical Christianity.
• to train Christians to state and defend Christian truth claims with greater effectiveness.

His mission primarily is to show that Christianity is very reasonable, rational, and in no way contradictory to the disciplines of science and philosophy. He does so by using science and philosophy to provide good evidence and arguments for the existence of God.​

That does not contradict what I said.

The KCA is a deductive syllogistic philosophical argument for the existence of a Creator of the Cosmos.

That is why I have posted it in the philosophy forum. Me posting the KCA here in this forum is in no way contradictory to my statement of my intention here. My intention is still not to convert anyone from anything to anything else. My intention is to show, by deductive philosophical argumentation, that the best explanation for the existence of the universe is that God created it ex nihilo. This is supported by the KCA.

Many apologetical works are philosophical in nature. And as such, they are definently not "off limits" to a philosophy forum on a Christian Forum Website!

No, but I think your prosthelytizing intermixed with your arguments in this thread is inappropriate, and better suited for a different forum.

You have yet to address all of the points raised (or even acknowledge that they have been raised) regarding the weaknesses of the argument. Why is that?

You also fail to understand that this argument is used primarily to show non-Christians evidence for the existence of God, and as such, is best posted here in this specific forum.

Only if you left out the prosthelytizing.

The KCA was configured to logically point to the conclusion that the universe has a cause for it's existence outside of itself. Give whatever name you wish to to this "Cause", but the argument logically concludes that this Cause must exist.

As first part is correct: the KCA was configured to logically point to the conclusion - the conclusion that was reached *prior* to the construction of the argument. If this were not painfully so obvious, I might try to help you fix it myself.

If you want to call it the Uncaused Cause, Unmoved Mover, God, Supreme Being, etc. etc., call the Cause what you will. They are all synonymous.

No, they are not.

If you are a theological noncognitivist, that means that any discussion of God is ultimately meaningless.

In a nutshell, a theological noncognitivist claims: 1. "God" does not refer to anything that exists. 2. "God" does not refer to anything that does not exist. 3. "God" does not refer to something that may or may not exist. 4. "God" has no literal significance, just as "Fod" has no literal significance.
Theological noncognitivism can be argued in different ways, depending on one's theory of meaning. Michael Martin, writing from a verificationist perspective, concludes that religious language is meaningless because it is not verifiable. This, however is based on logical positivism, which is now considered a dead philosophy since its verification principle is itself not verifiable. (Wikipedia)

That only describes my theological postion. It is not my worldview. From, say, a literary position, I can discuss characters in books, fictional or otherwise.

Yes, Dr. Craig addresses your views in some of his work.

Having seen his 'definition' of atheism, I can see that his work needs work.

1. When have I ever said that I can falsify germ theory, gravitational theory, and evolutionary theory in a short series of posts on an internet forum?

I am not aware that you have done so. Can you?

2. Even if I did say that I could do all of the above, what does that have to do with you accepting my invitation to debate on the topic: "Does God Exist?"

It was an allusion to how serious I am considering your offer.

3. You are insinuating that my offer to engage in a formal debate with you is something that should not be taken seriously. Well now, in order for that to be more than just your opinion, you will have to build a good argument as to why I am not serious regarding the invitation.

No, I do not doubt the seriousness of your offer. What I doubt is finding any value in it for myself.

4. If I were to have made some outlandish assertions that you believe would be easily shown to be fallacious, then it seems to me that you would be eager to engage in a formal debate and highlight those fallacies and outlandish claims, and thereby expose me as an incapable apologist.

No, I think you have already been exposed as an incapable apologist.

4. I offer a serious invitation to you to engage in a formal debate.

And I decline. I will help you with your math, if you like.

 

[Elioenai26]

You have specifically referenced WLC's material. Did you pay for any of that? Yes or no?

No I have not. Why do you ask?

That does not contradict what I said.

It elaborates and expounds on what you said. Nor did I manifestly declare that it was contradictory.

No, but I think your prosthelytizing intermixed with your arguments in this thread is inappropriate, and better suited for a different forum.

With regards to presenting a deductive syllogistic philosophical argument for the existence of God, your opinion counts for absolutely zero. Nor does my intention or opinion count for anything at all! To maintain that it does would be to commit an ad hominem fallacy.

You have yet to address all of the points raised (or even acknowledge that they have been raised) regarding the weaknesses of the argument. Why is that?

I will not address questions that I have already addressed. I shall simply refer you to the previous forty plus pages of material.

Only if you left out the prosthelytizing.

Even if I have been prosthelytizing, this has no bearing on the argument Davian. Your concern with my intentions are simply ad hominem fallacies and attacks at straw men of your own invention.

As first part is correct: the KCA was configured to logically point to the conclusion - the conclusion that was reached *prior* to the construction of the argument. If this were not painfully so obvious, I might try to help you fix it myself.

So painfully obvious, that no atheist when engaged in formal debate with Dr. Craig or any other apologist who uses this argument ever brings up this charge of question begging which you just have!

It seems to me that you are confusing question begging with a deductive modus ponens syllogism. This syllogism is a logical basic form of a deductive argument that when written looks like the following:

Another example would be the following:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

It is:

p implies q...
p
Therefore...q

Davian this is very basic philosophy we are dealing with here and any objection to it is a pseudo-intellectual objection based on a lack of understanding of even the most basic syllogistic models.

You see, all you have done in your objection is describe what a deductive argument is! A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion is implicit in the premises waiting to be derived by the logical rules of inference.

Now, an example of question begging would be me positing the following argument:

1. Either God exists, or the moon is made of bleu cheese
2. The moon is not made of bleu cheese
3. Therefore God exists

You see in the above that the argument's conclusion follows logically from the premises, but we know this is not a good argument because the arguer is begging the question of God's existence by positing (1) without any independent corroborating evidence. Therefore the argument fails.

The proponent of the KCA gives multiple attestation and evidence corroborating the veracity of it's two premises and these evidences and supports are completely independent of one's beliefs!

No, they are not.

If you say so!

That only describes my theological postion. It is not my worldview. From, say, a literary position, I can discuss characters in books, fictional or otherwise.

It is still self-defeating regardless, and according to you, you are still engaging in meaningless dialogue with me!

And I decline. I will help you with your math, if you like.

Ahh thanks! A simple edit remedied that!



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert Testimony


-“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow

-“The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.” - Arthur Eddington, British Astrophysicist and philosopher of science​

-Religion and science are opposed...but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp anything. -Physicist Sir William Bragg​

-"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein​

-Science only provides a car and chauffeur for us. It does not tell us where to drive. The car and the chauffeur will take us into the highlands or into the ditch with equal efficiency. -Dr. George Lundberg, professor of sociology at the University of Washington​

-The scientific method can teach us nothing beyond how facts are related to and conditioned by each other...knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduce from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. -Albert Einstein​

-The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. -Stephen Hawking, British Theoretical Physicist and author​

-“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow​

-“The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and earth.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow​

-A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing. - Anthony Kenny, British author and atheist​

 

[Davian]

No I have not. Why do you ask?

Mr. Craig has the pay the bills somehow. You do not get far on his site without seeing an "add to cart" button.

It elaborates and expounds on what you said. Nor did I manifestly declare that it was contradictory.

So it was like the old microsoft balloon joke (technically correct, but completely useless).

With regards to presenting a deductive syllogistic philosophical argument for the existence of God, your opinion counts for absolutely zero. Nor does my intention or opinion count for anything at all! To maintain that it does would be to commit an ad hominem fallacy.

Someone found the big book of fallacies, I see.

I will not address questions that I have already addressed. I shall simply refer you to the previous forty plus pages of material.

I asked, why do you not address the questions you have not addressed?

Even if I have been prosthelytizing, this has no bearing on the argument Davian.

I see that you do not deny the prosthelytizing. I agree, your argument fails for other reasons.

Your concern with my intentions are simply ad hominem fallacies and attacks at straw men of your own invention.

The big book of fallacies again. I do not see how that applies.

So painfully obvious, that no atheist when engaged in formal debate with Dr. Craig or any other apologist who uses this argument ever brings up this charge of question begging which you just have!

And now someone has.

It seems to me that you are confusing question begging with a deductive modus ponens syllogism. This syllogism is a logical basic form of a deductive argument that when written looks like the following:

Another example would be the following:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

It is:

p implies q...
p
Therefore...q

Davian this is very basic philosophy we are dealing with here and any objection to it is a pseudo-intellectual objection based on a lack of understanding of even the most basic syllogistic models.

You see, all you have done in your objection is describe what a deductive argument is! A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion is implicit in the premises waiting to be derived by the logical rules of inference.

Now, an example of question begging would be me positing the following argument:

1. Either God exists, or the moon is made of bleu cheese
2. The moon is not made of bleu cheese
3. Therefore God exists

You see in the above that the argument's conclusion follows logically from the premises, but we know this is not a good argument because the arguer is begging the question of God's existence by positing (1) without any independent corroborating evidence. Therefore the argument fails.

The proponent of the KCA gives multiple attestation and evidence corroborating the veracity of it's two premises and these evidences and supports are completely independent of one's beliefs!

Or you may simply be seen as yet another theist attempting to rationalize their own beliefs, for whatever reason... doubts, insecurities, or the 'great commission'. You are not going to try the 'bible code' next are you?

If you say so!

In absence of a supporting argument from your side, I would agree.

It is still self-defeating regardless, and according to you, you are still engaging in meaningless dialogue with me!

It is not self-defeating at all, as it is not the reason I am here on this site. *I* understand that this is all meaningless dialogue.

Ahh thanks! A simple edit remedied that!

Expert Testimony
<snip>

Did the individuals quoted find the cosmological argument to be convincing evidence for the existence of the Christian God?

 

[Elioenai26]

Did the individuals quoted find the cosmological argument to be convincing evidence for the existence of the Christian God?

I do not know whether or not they have studied the argument, so I cannot legitimately say whether they have or not.

 

[Davian]

I do not know whether or not they have studied the argument, so I cannot legitimately say whether they have or not.

So what was the point of the quotes?