Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[TillICollapse]

I really don't care.

I gathered as much.

Some atheists on this thread have been claiming that certain scientists (like Sean Carroll and Vilenkin) have shown that the universe did not have a beginning, so all I wanted to do was to show that several other notable (atheistic) scientists (Hawking, Krauss and Vilenkin actually refutes Carroll's model) have publicly stated that the universe probably did have a beginning ...in effect confirming that p2 (the universe began to exist) is more plausibly true than not.

Yes it seems like all you wanted to do was pick Hawking out of context, and you didn't care what the full context of his proposals are.

Lol!!!! No, in fact, even with all the attacks on this thread, the KCA has stood rock solid and no one has offered a good objection to it yet.

Smh.

The only reason I brought up the Holy Spirit is because I answered a question. If the unbeliever had not asked it, I would not have referenced it.

Hmm.

 

[TillICollapse]

Bananas have potassium and this helps in a good nights sleep.

I was referencing Ray Comfort.

 

[nonbeliever314]

OK, THIS IS REGARDING KCA. JOSHUA PLEASE REMEMBER, YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT DO NOT THINK THERE IS A GOD THAT THERE IS ONE.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

(I'll repeat myself again..)
If everything that "begins to exist" has a cause for it's existence, then everything that was a cause for something else's existence, had a cause for it's existence. Ad infinitum.

Premise one says EVERYTHING, and I said before doesn't everything also include god? Which means that god has a cause as well?

You said this earlier..


This is an argument by assertion. After everything you've said to back up the existence of god with KCA, you say he is real with absolutely no evidence, and you can't jump to premise two to try to explain off premise one. It doesn't stick.

So explain premise one again please... And explain how god somehow isn't included in the "everything" category. Then if you actually give a sound explanation, then we can move on.

Does this make sense to you guys? You know who you are..

 

[nonbeliever314]

And that's just going along with the KCA as if it actually makes sense.

 

[TillICollapse]

Does this make sense to you guys? You know who you are..

When referencing the KCA whilst claiming that "God" is exempt from the first premise of the KCA, that is special pleading in a nut shell.

 

[nonbeliever314]

He tried to wind his way around this part before, so I tried to write this up I such a way that there's no way around it. (I think, tired.....)

 

[nonbeliever314]

When referencing the KCA whilst claiming that "God" is exempt from the first premise of the KCA, that is special pleading in a nut shell.

Yep. Time machine is still the best way to go....

 

[KCfromNC]

Best argument for: I would say the existence of the universe. Not the Kalam necessarily but I think people have always found the God of the gaps persuasive (not correct ultimately but convincing while the gap exists) and in my mind the existence of the universe at all is a pretty big gap. We don't really know how it came to be, or even if coming in to existence is the right way of thinking about it. If there is anywhere that throwing up our hands and saying.. Because magic/God this would be the place.

I think it is a pretty good argument against. Supposedly a god powerful enough to create a universe would make it possible for everything to exist even if natural laws didn't allow it. And yet all we see when we look around is things existing in accordance with natural processes. There are an infinity of ways for the laws to be different compared to a limited number of ones where things exist in a way consistent with natural processes. You'd figure that if god created the universe we'd be way more likely to be in one of the infinitely large number of supernaturally run one rather than the limited number of naturally sustaining ones. And yet we find ourselves in the latter.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are incorrect. Craig merely claims that p2 is more plausibly true than not.

"More plausibly true"? Is that kind of like "possibly not 100% incorrect"?

Anyway, are we talking about Craig's formulation or the one you've been posting? The one you've posted doesn't say anything about probability whatsoever. Because if we're only talking "maybe" for P2, that means the logical conclusion is "maybe it is plausible that the universe was created".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I really don't care. Some atheists on this thread have been claiming that certain scientists (like Sean Carroll and Vilenkin) have shown that the universe did not have a beginning, so all I wanted to do was to show that several other notable (atheistic) scientists (Hawking, Krauss and Vilenkin actually refutes Carroll's model) have publicly stated that the universe probably did have a beginning ...in effect confirming that p2 (the universe began to exist) is more plausibly true than not.

It's already been pointed out that some models have a beginning and that others are eternal. This doesn't serve your argument well as it shows that the premise is contestable.

Lol!!!! No, in fact, even with all the attacks on this thread, the KCA has stood rock solid and no one has offered a good objection to it yet.

Perhaps you think that because you've ignored many of the objections?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Perhaps you think that because you've ignored many of the objections?

It's easy to be right when you have your fingers in your ears.

The real puzzler is why this person, who knows that we see right through their deceptions, continues with this at all? When my eight year old denies doing something wrong, and I show him evidence that he indeed did it, he's smart enough to stop lying about it, since it just makes it worse.

 

[Athée]

It's easy to be right when you have your fingers in your ears.

The real puzzler is why this person, who knows that we see right through their deceptions, continues with this at all? When my eight year old denies doing something wrong, and I show him evidence that he indeed did it, he's smart enough to stop lying about it, since it just makes it worse.

So there is hope for my 6 year old after all. Glad to hear it

 

[Joshua260]

OK, THIS IS REGARDING KCA. JOSHUA PLEASE REMEMBER, YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT DO NOT THINK THERE IS A GOD THAT THERE IS ONE.

That's not quite right. Right now, I'm trying to show that the conclusion of the KCA, that "The universe had a cause for it's existence" is more plausibly true than not.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

(I'll repeat myself again..)
If everything that "begins to exist" has a cause for it's existence, then everything that was a cause for something else's existence, had a cause for it's existence. Ad infinitum.

You have a few problems going on with your logic.

First, the consequent of your claim does not follow from the antecedent. The statement itself is a non-sequitur.

Second, putting your argument in the form of a syllogism would be like following:

1. If everything that "begins to exist" has a cause for it's existence, then everything that was a cause for something else's existence, had a cause for it's existence.
   
   
2. The universe exists.
   
   
3. Therefore, the cause of the universe’s existence had a cause for it’s existence.

And that is a real example of begging the question!

“Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premises.”

Premise one says EVERYTHING, and I said before doesn't everything also include god? Which means that god has a cause as well?

Yes, everything includes God, but the subject of p1 is a subset referred to as "Everything that begins to exist". It's like the difference between all M&Ms and green M&Ms.

You said this earlier...

"I already answered this. The Christian God did not "begin to exist". He is the "I am"."

This is an argument by assertion.

Nope. It was an answer to a question that was unrelated to the basic KCA. Please point out where God is referred to in the basic KCA.

 

[Joshua260]

I got a kick out of that as well.

The KCA is rock solid, because he says so.

So why is Davian's opinion that the premises of the KCA are "flimsy" is allowed, but I cannot express my opinion?

 

[nonbeliever314]

Restating: It was meant to be more of a question and not an argument. (Oh, I made a mistake!)

If everything that "begins to exist" has a cause for it's existence, then wouldn't everything that was a cause for something else's existence, had a cause for it's existence?

Yes, everything includes God, but the subject of p1 is a subset referred to as "Everything that begins to exist". It's like the difference between all M&Ms and green M&Ms.

Explain.


And explain how god did not "begin to exist".

 

[nonbeliever314]

If god did not begin to exist, then p1 is false. Because you just said:

Yes, everything includes God

But you claim god did not begin to exist.

 

[Joshua260]

If everything that "begins to exist" has a cause for it's existence, then wouldn't everything that was a cause for something else's existence, had a cause for it's existence?

I don't see where that follows.

And explain how god did not "begin to exist".

I have explained this repeatedly. I was not claiming that the KCA showed that God did not begin to exist. What I did was answer your question. You asked me about the ontology of God (I assumed the Abrahamic god), and the answer came (appropriately) from the bible. If you had asked me about the cause of the beginning of the universe, I would have addressed the answer from the POV of the KCA. Maybe you should clarify...Are you actually interested in hearing about the god of the Bible, or did you want to talk about the KCA?

 

[Joshua260]

If god did not begin to exist, then p1 is false. Because you just said:

"Yes, everything includes God"

But you claim god did not begin to exist.

You don't seem to be able to understand that we're talking of two different groups of things.
There is:
1. a group of things that "begin to exist"
2. a group of things that "did not begin to exist".

The KCA is discussing group 1.

 

[Davian]

So why is Davian's opinion that the premises of the KCA are "flimsy" is allowed, but I cannot express my opinion?

The difference is, my opinion is substantiated.

Have we yet to find anyone that cares about the KCA, that did not already believe in a god? If it is not convincing, why do you sink so much effort into it? At least WLC uses it to sell books. What do you get out of this?

 

[bhsmte]

You don't seem to be able to understand that we're talking of two different groups of things.
There is:
1. a group of things that "begin to exist"
2. a group of things that "did not begin to exist".

The KCA is discussing group 1.

Show us your god did t begin to exist.