Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Joshua260]

Show us your god did t begin to exist.

As much as I'd like to do that, I'd rather stick to the KCA.

Basic KCA:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.

I don't claim that this argument will compel a person to accept it (neither does Craig), but I do claim that the conclusion is more plausibly true than not. The conclusion follows inescapably from the premises, and the premises are well-supported. So far, I've not seen any good reason not to accept the argument as true.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I don't see where that follows.

You know exactly what I mean. I made a statement about the first premise. And you understood it just fine. You turned it into this...

• 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.

• The universe exists.

• Therefore, the cause of the universe’s existence had a cause for it’s existence.

...But when I changed it to be a question, all of a sudden you don't know where it follows? Interesting.......

Basic KCA:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.

Yes, everything includes God

So if everything also includes god, then according to p1 god has a cause for his existence.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.

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

But now all of a sudden, god didn't begin to exist? Oh yeah, it's because he is included in the other category of things that didn't begin to exist.

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.

Where does premise one say it's referring to a subset of everything? According to what you said, "Yes, everything includes God".

Wait, you're just trying to show that the "basic KCA" is more plausible than not. But yet the thread is titled "Best Argument For or Against God's Existence".

You and I both know, that the KCA is an argument for showing that god's existence "is more plausible than not". WLC uses it, you use it. So anytime god is brought up, stop saying, "please stick to the basic KCA". Because from what you said in the quotes above, you contradicted yourself.

If the thread was called "Best argument for the beginning of the universe", I wouldn't keep bringing up god.

 

[TillICollapse]

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

Nah. Denial is denial. Trying to erase or remove a part of reality isn't the path for the honest

 

[nonbeliever314]

Nah. Denial is denial. Trying to erase or remove a part of reality isn't the path for the honest

:: Shrug ::

 

[TillICollapse]

:: Shrug ::

lol

 

[AllanV]

Sorry I missed that you had replied. Can you give a practical example of some of the information you're talking about ? For instance, you said you tried to build some devices or something ? Or that the Eternal God's power comes through a pattern that is easily calculated and the rate can be changed ? Can you give an example of what that means ?

What area is your main interest?

 

[TillICollapse]

What area is your main interest?

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[bhsmte]

As much as I'd like to do that, I'd rather stick to the KCA.

Basic KCA:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.

I don't claim that this argument will compel a person to accept it (neither does Craig), but I do claim that the conclusion is more plausibly true than not. The conclusion follows inescapably from the premises, and the premises are well-supported. So far, I've not seen any good reason not to accept the argument as true.

Your God is off limits, huh?

Special plead much?

 

[nonbeliever314]

Your God is off limits, huh?

Special plead much?

Hey! Stick to the basic KCA!

 

[Davian]

Your God is off limits, huh?

Special plead much?

It's a mixed blessing. Do you really want to go though all of those apologetics again?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The best argument is sometimes to leave words behind and tune in with the heart.


Ihsan: it's to worship God as if you are seeing Him and while you see Him not yet
truly He sees you.

Cognitive vs emotive theology?

 

[quatona]

The best argument is sometimes to leave words behind and tune in with the heart.


Ihsan: it's to worship God as if you are seeing Him and while you see Him not yet
truly He sees you.

Cognitive vs emotive theology?

I guess what annoys most people here is when the latter pretends to be the former.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

The KCA invokes group 2 as the cause of the universe's existence. If group 2 is only populated by a single entity (God), then it begs the question. What other things occupy group 2? And why is the universe definitively excluded from group 2 even though premise 2 of the KCA is clearly contestable and far from established?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As much as I'd like to do that, I'd rather stick to the KCA.

Basic KCA:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence.

I don't claim that this argument will compel a person to accept it (neither does Craig), but I do claim that the conclusion is more plausibly true than not. The conclusion follows inescapably from the premises, and the premises are well-supported. So far, I've not seen any good reason not to accept the argument as true.

As we've already established, accepting the conclusion of the basic KCA in no way commits one to a theological position. Moreover, as discussed, we cannot properly examine whether the premises are supported until you define what you is meant by the terms 'cause' and 'begins to exist.'

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Joshua260, does intelligence begin to exist?

 

[Achilles6129]

The KCA invokes group 2 as the cause of the universe's existence.

The KCA is based upon how time works in this universe, and that's it. If time runs differently somewhere else than it does in this universe (for example, in a circular fashion), then the KCA would not apply. The KCA thus states that time as it runs in this universe does not apply to God. It arrives at this deduction because it's impossible to have an infinite regress.

If group 2 is only populated by a single entity (God), then it begs the question. What other things occupy group 2?

Interesting question, but it really has no bearing on the KCA. It's just a side question. It's possible that nothing else is unaffected by time as we understand it other than God.

And why is the universe definitively excluded from group 2 even though premise 2 of the KCA is clearly contestable and far from established?

Nothing is definitively excluded from group 2, but anything subject to time as it runs in this universe would have to have a beginning because you can't have an infinite regress. So if you believed that the universe was subject to time then the universe would be definitively excluded from group 2.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The KCA invokes group 2 as the cause of the universe's existence. If group 2 is only populated by a single entity (God), then it begs the question. What other things occupy group 2?

You know you're not going to get a good response to this point, right? Because it invalidates the argument, and we can't have that...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Interesting question, but it really has no bearing on the KCA. It's just a side question. It's possible that nothing else is unaffected by time as we understand it other than God.

Of course it has bearing on the argument. The original cosmological argument's first premise was usually stated as "Everything that exists must have a cause." It was then shown that if you exclude a god from that first premise, you're invoking special pleading, a logical fallacy. This invalidates the argument.

The KCA tries to get around this by restating the first premise to "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause." But this rewording merely tries to hide the special pleading. Because if a god is the only thing in the set of things that don't begin to exist, the first premise is, in essence, "Everything except God must have a cause.". Which is special pleading. Which is a logical fallacy. Which invalidates the argument.

 

[Achilles6129]

What does this even mean?

It means that time doesn't run in a straight line for God like it does for this universe. Our normal experience of time is that it runs in a straight line. This means we can always ask "what came before," etc. However, with God, time wouldn't run in a straight line, it would run much differently, possibly circular. More research is needed into this, obviously, but the point is that time doesn't run in a straight line for God like it does for us.

Even if you suggest that a multiverse or an inanimate, unintelligent "thing" gave birth to the universe, you still have the same problem with time because you can't have an infinite regress. So time would have to run radically different in the multiverse or for the inanimate, unintelligent "thing." So no matter what one thinks, time has to run radically different somewhere.

Yes. And to be more precise, machines have a human designer. Therefore if you really believe that the universe looks like a machine you're saying it looks like it was designed by humans. Is that really what you're trying to sell here?

The point is about intelligence, not exactly who the designer is.

 

[Achilles6129]

The KCA tries to get around this by restating the first premise to "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause." But this rewording merely tries to hide the special pleading. Because if a god is the only thing in the set of things that don't begin to exist, the first premise is, in essence, "Everything except God must have a cause.". Which is special pleading. Which is a logical fallacy. Which invalidates the argument.

So you're saying that if something else exists besides God that doesn't have a cause then that would invalidate the existence of God....?