Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[nonbeliever314]

In the KCA define "cause".

This one's for you Joshua.

 

[Joshua260]

In the KCA define "cause".

Cause: something which brings about or produces its effects.

 

[Joshua260]

Weird how cherry-picked speculation from scientists

...like scientific readings of the red-shift and the background radiation...

counts as a good reason to accept various propositions, but an actual verified scientific model

...such as armchair unproven theories...

is only a "pipe dream".

 

[nonbeliever314]

Cause: something which brings about or produces its effects.

Saw that coming. "The univocal concept of "cause" employed throughout the argument is the concept of something which brings about or produces its effects" (Taken from: Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
By William Lane Craig)

PS. It's on page 155.

 

[Joshua260]

Saw that coming. "The univocal concept of "cause" employed throughout the argument is the concept of something which brings about or produces its effects" (Taken from: Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
By William Lane Craig)

PS. It's on page 155.

Thanks. Yes, I think it's a good definition to work with.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Thanks. Yes, I think it's a good definition to work with.

Let's replace "cause" in the KCA with Willy's definition shall we?

• Everything that begins to exist has something which brings about or produces its effects;

• The universe began to exist;

• The universe has something which brings about or produces its effects.;

Now define "everything". Or should I just dig through reasonablefaith.org and find his definition? (Maybe I'll do that to hasten things up a bit)

 

[nonbeliever314]

Ooops. I stated the KCA wrong....

1. Whatever begins to exist has something which brings about or produces its effects.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has something which brings about or produces its effects.

From -> (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defense-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument)

Great now I have to dig for Willy's definition of "whatever"...

 

[Kylie]

Ooops. I stated the KCA wrong....

1. Whatever begins to exist has something which brings about or produces its effects.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has something which brings about or produces its effects.

From -> (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defense-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument)

Great now I have to dig for Willy's definition of "whatever"...

2 is flawed. It began to exist the way it exists now, but we can't be sure that it existed in some other way.

 

[nonbeliever314]

2 is flawed. It began to exist the way it exists now, but we can't be sure that it existed in some other way.

Agreed. I'm just bored so I thought I'd have some fun and replace every weirdly worded thing in the argument with WLC's definitions.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Saw that coming. "The univocal concept of "cause" employed throughout the argument is the concept of something which brings about or produces its effects" (Taken from: Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics
By William Lane Craig)

PS. It's on page 155.

Hmmm, I seem to recall a past poster who tended to plagiarize WLC. Someone who's posts seem remarkably like a current poster...

 

[nonbeliever314]

"This result is intuitive because God, if He exists timelessly sans creation, doesn’t begin to exist or come into being at the moment of creation!

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/beginning-to-exist#ixzz3dqcFcni0"

Me: "Well that just solves the whole thing then!"

It's funny how Willy doesn't say eternal because he's anti-infinity. So he says "He exists timelessly".

“26 "There is none like God, Jeshurun, who rides on the heavens for your help, In his excellency on the skies.
27 The eternal God is your dwelling place. Underneath are the everlasting arms. He thrust out the enemy from before you, and said, 'Destroy!”

Excerpt From: The World English Bible (WEB). “The Holy Bible.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/0HhDC.l

“6 He stood, and shook the earth. He looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains were crumbled. The age-old hills collapsed. His ways are eternal.”

Excerpt From: The World English Bible (WEB). “The Holy Bible.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/0HhDC.l

Eternal: "having infinite duration" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternal)

So I guess either Willy is right and god is "timeless", or the Bible is right and god is eternal, OR the bible I have is the wrong bible and there is another one that says something different.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Hmmm, I seem to recall a past poster who tended to plagiarize WLC. Someone who's posts seem remarkably like a current poster...

Someone pointed out the situation to me, so when something felt "odd", I copied and pasted, and then copied and pasted again.

 

[Davian]

Wow. Are you serious? They are exactly the people we would consult about the nature of reality!!!

Which ones? Aristotle? Nietzsche? Wittgenstein? Metzinger? Dennett?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Cause: something which brings about or produces its effects.

Still vague. As cjlr noted, "this is merely a restatement - no doubt you'd define 'effect' as 'something caused.'"

 

[nonbeliever314]

Which ones? Aristotle? Nietzsche? Wittgenstein? Metzinger? Dennett?

Nietzsche.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Off topic... Sorta:

 

[TillICollapse]

Off topic... Sorta:

One of my favorite stories as a kid. I enjoyed that, thanks

 

[nonbeliever314]

One of my favorite stories as a kid. I enjoyed that, thanks

"I cannot do wrong, because I don't know what it is..."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

...like scientific readings of the red-shift and the background radiation...

Do you accept what these readings tell us about the age of the universe?

...such as armchair unproven theories...

You look very comfortable in your armchair. As I recall, nonbeliever314 invited you to discuss quantum mechanics and relativity in greater depth given your apparent proficiency in physics, but you chose the armchair.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Which ones? Aristotle? Nietzsche? Wittgenstein? Metzinger? Dennett?

These survey results indicate that most professional philosophers are atheists, so presumably most philosophers don't find the KCA convincing, if they've heard of it.