Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[quatona]

I think you mischaracterize our claim about the KCA. The KCA claims to show that the universe probably had a cause for it's existence

Ah, so it´s about probabilities. Let´s see the calculations.

 

[TillICollapse]

Instead of being condescending and rude, how about showing where the KCA (as shown below) fails to show that the universe probably had a cause?

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.

With all due respect lol ...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Instead of being condescending and rude, how about showing where the KCA (as shown below) fails to show that the universe probably had a cause?

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 did. Like pages and pages ago.

 

[The Cadet]

I think you mischaracterize our claim about the KCA. The KCA claims to show that the universe probably had a cause for it's existence, and when we extrapolate the characteristic traits of that cause, one finds that not only can we rule out suggestions like Santa Clause, the Tooth fairy, the FSM, and so forth, but also that it narrows down the possible causes to a short list which happens to include the Christian god.

I can't speak for why some people refuse to accept the implications of logical arguments and evidence. For example, some people refuse to believe that OJ is guilty, that the Holocaust actually happened, or even that we landed on the moon. Do you think it's only due to a lack of evidence?

Congratulations, you just equated an entire field of scientists to holocaust deniers. In this case, I think the positions these people hold at the head of their scientific disciplines is a very good reason to assume that they are at least somewhat objective in examining the evidence to do with their field! Again, let's remember that what we're really looking at here is an untrained outsider wading into an incredibly complex field of study and claiming to understand it enough to use it to prove his God, while almost everyone involved in the field does not believe that their evidence leads to God. And sure, it's plenty easy to just ignore this inconvenient fact by claiming that they're somehow biased. But it's a lot more reasonable to explain it with the simple explanation of "Craig is wrong about a complex discipline he has no formal training in".

Also, if your characterization of Kalam is accurate, congrats - you've just admitted that the argument is completely and utterly worthless, as it offers us absolutely no mechanism to pare down this list which supposedly "includes the Christian god". It presumably includes literally every other hypothetical concept that is timeless and capable of causing things to happen (non-temporally).

 

[Achilles6129]

We could move on to the teleological argument. FYI I, like Joshua, did not see a refutation of the KCA on this thread. Those who believe they have demonstrated how spurious it is can post a link to the pertinent post/source. Thanks.

 

[The Cadet]

We could move on to the teleological argument. FYI I, like Joshua, did not see a refutation of the KCA on this thread.

Here's one: "The cosmologists whose research we rely on to back up the premises do not find the argument convincing". Given that Craig is not a trained cosmologist, I consider this absolutely sufficient.

Care to present the teleological argument?

 

[Joshua260]

We could move on to the teleological argument. FYI I, like Joshua, did not see a refutation of the KCA on this thread. Those who believe they have demonstrated how spurious it is can post a link to the pertinent post/source. Thanks.

You're right, Achilles. The KCA has held up just fine on this thread and I wouldn't mind exploring the teleological argument myself. As I recall it goes something like this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to chance, necessity, or design.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance or necessity.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

Is that about right, Achilles?

 

[nonbeliever314]

Annnnd, I think I'll hop back on this thread again...

 

[variant]

You're right, Achilles. The KCA has held up just fine on this thread and I wouldn't mind exploring the teleological argument myself. As I recall it goes something like this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to chance, necessity, or design.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance or necessity.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

Is that about right, Achilles?

You can rule out both chance and necessity (and any combination of the two) on a subject we are woefully ignorant of?

This is why I like WLC, the hubris.

 

[nonbeliever314]

We could move on to the teleological argument. FYI I, like Joshua, did not see a refutation of the KCA on this thread. Those who believe they have demonstrated how spurious it is can post a link to the pertinent post/source. Thanks.

Regarding P1 of the KCA, define "Anything".

 

[nonbeliever314]

In regards to fine-tuning, define what life is.

 

[Davian]

We could move on to the teleological argument. FYI I, like Joshua, did not see a refutation of the KCA on this thread. Those who believe they have demonstrated how spurious it is can post a link to the pertinent post/source. Thanks.

Who made you the arbiter of what constitutes a refutation of the KCA?

 

[Davian]

You're right, Achilles. The KCA has held up just fine on this thread

and I wouldn't mind exploring the teleological argument myself. As I recall it goes something like this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe <snip>

What tuning? Are you suggesting that your all-powerful-all-knowing whatchamacallit guessed at how to put a universe together, and then fiddled with the knobs until we got what we observe today? What other options were available when the order was place for this new universe?

And, does not this alleged "fine-tuning" rest on the standard cosmological model, which you do not adhere to?

 

[nonbeliever314]

If we are going to actually debate this stuff, I don't want everything to go in circles where we end up starting back at square one. So, we are going to have to come to some sort of agreement on the definitions of things we reference in our arguments.

Can we all agree on that at least?

I think this thread can be very constructive, but it can't be chaotic like it is now.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I'd actually go as far as to say create a new thread. And start fresh. We can message each other to come up with the rules, and the first post will be those rules.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Instead of being condescending and rude, how about showing where the KCA (as shown below) fails to show that the universe probably had a cause?

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.

There are literally pages of material in this thread examining each of the premises. Start with those. At this point, I doubt anyone is going to repeat what they've already stated only for you to ignore it again.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We could move on to the teleological argument. FYI I, like Joshua, did not see a refutation of the KCA on this thread. Those who believe they have demonstrated how spurious it is can post a link to the pertinent post/source. Thanks.

Start from page 1 and re-read the thread.

 

[The Cadet]

You're right, Achilles. The KCA has held up just fine on this thread

Which is interesting, because it sure hasn't held up among cosmologists.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to chance, necessity, or design.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance or necessity.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

Is that about right, Achilles?

I would love to see the justification for either of those premises. "Chance, necessity, or design" is not a true trichotomy in any meaningful sense; while I cannot think of an alternative I have never heard anyone justify that that is the case. Premise two is just hilariously unfounded. If I recall correctly from the Carroll-WLC debate, Craig's explanation for why chance is out of the question is that "it's really unlikely!" That's a really weak excuse, given that the whole argument is based around "the laws of the universe being fine-tuned for life" - if it hadn't been fine-tuned for life, we wouldn't be here making stupid, baseless, fallacious arguments about it, would we?

 

[Joshua260]

I'd actually go as far as to say create a new thread. And start fresh. We can message each other to come up with the rules, and the first post will be those rules.

I created a thread on the teleological argument. Sorry, I forgot your request about rules, but I'm working off an iPod right now and it's very difficult to navigate. But I simply stated the argument. I think it's a good idea for a separate thread. I wish now that the KCA discussion would have been given its own thread also.

 

[Joshua260]

And, does not this alleged "fine-tuning" rest on the standard cosmological model, which you do not adhere to?

I don't remember saying that I didn't subscribe to the standard model. I don't mind discussion, but I like to stay on topic and not stray after rabbit trails.