• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives

And again, that doesn't mean it's correct.



Wow... how many times do I have to say we are in agreement that the universe had a beginning? Why do you keep providing data for something that we are in agreement on?

We are in agreement on it. Stop bringing up stuff that we are in agreement on!

Got it? Good!


As I said in my previous posts to you, premise one is the contentious issue here. Off the top of my head that's what virtually all of the criticism of the Kalam on this thread is attacking.

Provide data for that.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
And again, that doesn't mean it's correct.

You're right. A person's cognitive equipment could malfunction and cause a false belief to be formed which is false.

That is certainly possible. However, highlighting this does not take even the first step in providing a defeater for my properly basic beliefs anymore than me pointing out that your properly basic beliefs could be false serves as a defeater for yours.

You would need to provide some sort of evidence or arguments that something can come from nothing.





Let me give three reasons in support of premise (1'):

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.



Read more: The Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives

Why would I have to argue, much less prove that something can come from nothing?

For one, that's not my position.

Secondly, even if it was and I couldn't defend it, that doesn't make your belief correct. To think that it would is a shifting of the burden of proof.



You still haven't addressed my post which shows why this line of reasoning doesn't work. Please respond to post #814 as I've already written why the "something coming from nothing" line of argument makes no sense.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

Back to square one; demonstrate a state of nothiness has ever existed, or your claim disinegrates.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Since my arguments don't "reduce to reformed epistemology" I can happily agree for the sake of being charitable.

They do if you’re reduced to admitting your premises are just “properly basic beliefs”. Because if they’re more than that, there wouldn’t be any reason to bring up a reformed epistemology term...

Apologetics to me, is not just about convincing someone that what I believe is true. It is about much more than that.

As in?
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Back to square one; demonstrate a state of nothiness has ever existed, or your claim disinegrates.

I think you mean "disintegrates".

Why does the metaphysical principle that being cannot come from non-being disintegrate in the absence of a demonstration of the existence of a state of nothingness?
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
They do if you’re reduced to admitting your premises are just “properly basic beliefs”. Because if they’re more than that, there wouldn’t be any reason to bring up a reformed epistemology term...

My premises are supported by evidence and arguments Todd.

I've never argued that the reason a person should accept the premises of an argument is because I hold them to be properly basic. Rather, I appeal to the proper basicality of certain beliefs I hold when asked why I hold them.

Please understand that there is a distinction between knowing something and showing something.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
In that post, you made some very strange claims.

I will let Dr. Craig comment on them:

Objections So Bad I Couldn’t Have Made Them Up

Check objection #6

Objection #6 isn't my objection, please read my post and actually address what I said.

To clarify, objection #6 is: "Nothing ever begins to exist! For the material of which a thing consists precedes it. So it is not true that the universe began to exist."

My objection is we've never witnessed anything begin to exist because every new thing we see in our every day lives is a rearrangement of matter which has existed since the big bang.

It's an equivocation fallacy to compare beginning to exist in the ultimate sense with beginning to exist in the everyday sense that we experience whenever we make something new.

To address objection #6 directly:

""Nothing ever begins to exist!" - We know the universe began to exist at the big bang.
"For the material of which a thing consists precedes it." - In the everyday sense, sure. In the ultimate sense, by definition it wouldn't be possible since we are discussing the creation of matter and energy.
"So it is not true that the universe began to exist." - Did you somehow not understand the part of my recent post which repeatedly and unequivocally stated that I agree the universe began to exist at the big bang?

As such, it should be obvious that this objection on Craig's site is not my argument.

Now, please stop lazily defaulting to Craig's website and address my actual argument in post #814.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives

And oddly enough, you don't know and you can't show your beliefs are true.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
My premises are supported by evidence and arguments Todd.

And it's been shown that your evidence and arguments aren't sufficient to show they're true. So the truth value of the premises remains at best unknowable.

I've never argued that the reason a person should accept the premises of an argument is because I hold them to be properly basic. Rather, I appeal to the proper basicality of certain beliefs I hold when asked why I hold them.

So if someone says they have a properly basic belief that there's currently no way to know if the universe had a beginning, or if the idea is even coherent, that shuts down the conversation completely, correct?

Like I've said before, reformed epistemology is just a way for someone to carve out a hiding place where they can ultimately retreat to in order for them to avoid the nagging feeling that they may be wrong.

WLC is probably the most egregious example, with his "defeater defeater" that precludes any discussion at all...

Please understand that there is a distinction between knowing something and showing something.

I understand perfectly well. I also understand you haven't actually shown anything.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship

To quote the part you must have missed:

"The serious point of this muddled objection, I think, is its presupposition that everything that begins to exist has a material cause. But that claim is irrelevant to the truth of the two premises of the kalam cosmological argument and requires proof in any case. It is true, I think, that in our experience material things do not begin to exist without material causes, so we do have the same sort of inductive evidence on behalf of material causation as we have for efficient causation. But if we have good arguments and evidence that the material realm had an absolute beginning preceded by nothing, this can override the inductive evidence. What we cannot reasonably say, I think, is that the universe sprang into being without either an efficient or a material cause, since being does not come from nonbeing. But there is no sort of metaphysical absurdity involved in somethings having an efficient cause but no material cause."

Read more: Objections So Bad I Couldn’t Have Made Them Up
 
Reactions: Uber Genius
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship

Ok.

Thanks for your input nonetheless. It will help me in the future when presenting this argument to others.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think you mean "disintegrates".

Why does the metaphysical principle that being cannot come from non-being disintegrate in the absence of a demonstration of the existence of a state of nothingness?

Willie craig would be proud.

At the end of the day, you are nowhere, because your assumptions are just that, assumptions.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Willie craig would be proud.

I'm sure he would, since it's his argument, and mostly presented in his words...

I think perhaps from now on whenever a theist uses the phrase "properly basic belief" I'm just going to say that I have a properly basic belief their argument is wrong and shut the whole nonsense down. I'd suggest all the non theists do the same.

Fighting stupid fire with stupid fire as it were...
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,921
1,244
Kentucky
✟72,039.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Then why do you use the Kalam? The first premise isn't known to be true or valid.


Premises in arguments don't require certainty of a mathematical proof. Science doesn't certainly doesn't require that level of certainty and philosophy requires that premises be more plausibly true then their opposite.

If you required certainty of the type you describe all you would accomplish is rueucing what anyone could "know" to the smallest fraction of what we now know.

Premises that are accepted by theists and atheists alike:

1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation transcends the universe
3. The universe is a contingent thing.
4.The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
5.Intentional states of consciousness do exist.


Read more: Does God Exist? | Reasonable Faith

Read more: Does God Exist? | Reasonable Faith
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
You could do that.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
You could do that.

And the really cool part is that if we all reject any idea that challenges our own, under the guise of “properly basic beliefs” and “defeater defeaters”, there would be a lot less arguing. No need for debates, no changing of minds. Logical fallacies suddenly mean nothing. We’re firmly grounded in believing anything without fear of successful contradictions.

It would almost be like using philosophy to destroy philosophy, in a sense.

And maybe that’s the ultimate goal of philosophy anyway...
 
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0