Kalaam Cosmological Argument

[childeye 2]

Well, not really... Just because the universe had a beginning doesn't provide evidence for a god. You have a lot of work to do before you can make that leap.

Pardon my asking, but could you please define what you mean to denote by the term 'god' in your statement above? I don't believe we're talking about the same thing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Recent Responses to the Kalam Argument | Reasonable Faith

Thank you for the assist, devolved! I didn't realize that Craig's website offers transcripts.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Pardon my asking, but could you please define what you mean to denote by the term 'god' in your statement above? I don't believe we're talking about the same thing.

Well, you're the one that believes such a being exists, so how about you define it and I'll revise my position if needs be. There's no point in me attempting to define it if it doesn't line up with your position.

 

[childeye 2]

Well, you're the one that believes such a being exists, so how about you define it and I'll revise my position if needs be. There's no point in me attempting to define it if it doesn't line up with your position.

I put forth my Christian understanding of the term as it relates to the creation in post #139 as shown here: But I believe it is pertinent to this thread that an expanding universe and the indications of a universe with a beginning, means that the term God defined as the source of the energy of creation, makes that term a viable axiom.

I am quoting you here: "Any honest scientist or atheist would simply say we don't know where we came from". Also: "Apologists like to throw out the claim that atheists or scientists believe we popped out of nothing however that's simply not a true statement."
Now I am paraphrasing your sentiments using a true dichotomy: Any honest scientist or atheist would say we came from somewhere or something.

Hence the term 'God' defined as "the source of the energy of creation", carries the same meaning alluding to where we came from. Came from somewhere/something = Source of the energy of creation.

Now here is what I said again: But I believe it is pertinent to this thread that an expanding universe and the indications of a universe with a beginning, means that the term God defined as the source of the energy of creation, makes that term a viable axiom.

 

[durangodawood]

.....means that the term God defined as the source of the energy of creation, makes that term a viable axiom.

Pretty weak idea of "God". The source could be just 'more stuff'.

In fact that doesnt really satisfy anyone's idea of God.

 

[childeye 2]

Pretty weak idea of "God". The source could be just 'more stuff'.

In fact that doesnt really satisfy anyone's idea of God.

Yes I agree that it's a rather weak imagery of god when imagined as more stuff.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes I agree that it's a rather weak imagery of god when imagined as more stuff.

But more stuff could satisfy the definition of God that youve proposed.

So I think your definition is very incomplete.

 

[childeye 2]

But more stuff could satisfy the definition of God that youve proposed.

So I think your definition is very incomplete.

I know what you mean, but according to scripture some people are so blind, a bug could satisfy the definition of God I've proposed. It's absurd to imagine God as a bug.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The link opens up with this absolute whopper: You know an argument is a good one when there is so much response to it.

Should I even read on?

Yes, durangodawood, I believe you should read on because once you get past the first fifth of the transcript/video, Craig attempts to address some of the grievances people call him out for, and I won't name names as to who calls Craig out because that might make some people feel shrill. Right, @Silmarien?

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, durangodawood, I believe you should read on because once you get past the first fifth of the transcript/video, Craig attempts to address some of the grievances people call him out for, and I won't name names as to who calls Craig out because that might make some people feel shrill. Right, @Silmarien?

Shrillmarien?

No way! She's calm and friendly.

(Not to mention, I dont even take "shrill!!!" stuff seriously as its mainly just an insult to shut down women who present challenges.)

 

[Silmarien]

I appreciate the considered response. Most of these things will take extra reflection to see how I actually respond to them. Especially the principle of sufficient reason. My knee jerk reaction is the PSR is more a reflection of our own mental habits than of the universe. But I'm not sure.

Just keep in mind that you're going to have significant trouble distinguishing between things that are known and things that are unknown if you reject PSR. You can say that you know that gravity exists, but if you claim that it may exist for no reason, then it could just as easily have failed to exist, or to cease to exist at any moment. The continued existence of something with no possible explanation is as miraculous as the fact that it ever came to exist in the first place. Is there a point at which a chain of scientific explanation can terminate with no conceivable answer? Where we can say that physical regularities simply are, even though there is no cause behind them, no reason for them to come into being at all? As far as I can tell, that is effectively the definition of magic.

It is a very powerful, very controversial principle, it's true, but I think people need to take the price paid for denying it very seriously. And I also think there are interesting questions to be asked about what the success of empirical sciences has to say about the ability of our minds to match up to reality. It was a lot easier to be skeptical about that before we had reams of evidence backing up the idea that our conceptual tools are sufficient for some pretty wild stuff.

Shrillmarien?

No way! She's calm and friendly.

Not always, lol.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I put forth my Christian understanding of the term as it relates to the creation in post #139 as shown here: But I believe it is pertinent to this thread that an expanding universe and the indications of a universe with a beginning, means that the term God defined as the source of the energy of creation, makes that term a viable axiom.

I am quoting you here: "Any honest scientist or atheist would simply say we don't know where we came from". Also: "Apologists like to throw out the claim that atheists or scientists believe we popped out of nothing however that's simply not a true statement."
Now I am paraphrasing your sentiments using a true dichotomy: Any honest scientist or atheist would say we came from somewhere or something.

Hence the term 'God' defined as "the source of the energy of creation", carries the same meaning alluding to where we came from. Came from somewhere/something = Source of the energy of creation.

Now here is what I said again: But I believe it is pertinent to this thread that an expanding universe and the indications of a universe with a beginning, means that the term God defined as the source of the energy of creation, makes that term a viable axiom.

If your defintion of god is simply whatever sparked the big bang (eve if it's the basic laws of nature), then sure, there's a god going off of your definition. What you're describing is pantheism though, not Christianity.

If god is just some nebulous source of matter and energy, you can throw out virtually everything that's written about the god that's portrayed in the bible. If "god" is the laws of nature, then there's no reason to believe it even has consciousness or a will of any kind. We have even less reason to believe Jesus has any relation to this entity.

So sure, if you want to take whatever process sparked the big bang and call it god, then there's a god by definition. I personally think it's a useless label and doesn't fit in with the general understanding of what a god is.

 

[childeye 2]

If your defintion of god is simply whatever sparked the big bang (eve if it's the basic laws of nature), then sure, there's a god going off of your definition. What you're describing is pantheism though, not Christianity.

I don’t think it’s any secret that Christians define God as the source of the energy of creation. I indicated this in post #134 : I would think that if God created everything when He spoke, then everything in the universe including the physics of the Universe would be applicable to theology. If necessary this can be attested to in Psalms 33:9 or John 1:3.

If god is just some nebulous source of matter and energy, you can throw out virtually everything that's written about the god that's portrayed in the bible. If "god" is the laws of nature, then there's no reason to believe it even has consciousness or a will of any kind. We have even less reason to believe Jesus has any relation to this entity.

WOW, I must agree with your analysis. Likewise scripture does not portray God as a thing.

While the term God infers a source of the energy of Creation, Christians view whatever form the energy takes as an expression of thought. Hence the laws of nature would accomplish whatever God had conceived or devised before He spoke.

So sure, if you want to take whatever process sparked the big bang and call it god, then there's a god by definition. I personally think it's a useless label and doesn't fit in with the general understanding of what a god is.

You know Sir, as a student of semantics I see most people either conflate the term god with religion or with a superstition. I must say that I am currently marveling at your being able to understand what I have said on this thread. You may count god as a useless label, but at least you’re one of a handful of Atheists I have met that wasn’t so biased by their subjective view of the term, that it utterly compromised their objectivity.

 

[childeye 2]

[

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I put forth my Christian understanding of the term as it relates to the creation in post #139 as shown here: But I believe it is pertinent to this thread that an expanding universe and the indications of a universe with a beginning, means that the term God defined as the source of the energy of creation, makes that term a viable axiom.

I am quoting you here: "Any honest scientist or atheist would simply say we don't know where we came from". Also: "Apologists like to throw out the claim that atheists or scientists believe we popped out of nothing however that's simply not a true statement."
Now I am paraphrasing your sentiments using a true dichotomy: Any honest scientist or atheist would say we came from somewhere or something.

Hence the term 'God' defined as "the source of the energy of creation", carries the same meaning alluding to where we came from. Came from somewhere/something = Source of the energy of creation.

Now here is what I said again: But I believe it is pertinent to this thread that an expanding universe and the indications of a universe with a beginning, means that the term God defined as the source of the energy of creation, makes that term a viable axiom.

As others have pointed out, this would be compatible with theism, pantheism, naturalism, and presumably many other options.

 

[childeye 2]

As others have pointed out, this would be compatible with theism, pantheism, naturalism, and presumably many other options.

Yes exactly. I myself have pointed this out, and even scripture clearly acknowledges many images of 'god'. That's why the term 'Christ' in Christianity means The True Image of God sent by God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes exactly, I myself have pointed this out, and even scripture acknowledges many images of 'god'. That's why the term 'Christ' in Christianity means The True Image of God sent by God.

That doesn't make sense though given that at least some of the options just mentioned are incompatible with one another.

 

[Silmarien]

Yes exactly. I myself have pointed this out, and even scripture clearly acknowledges many images of 'god'. That's why the term 'Christ' in Christianity means The True Image of God sent by God.

The term Χριστός (Christos) means "Anointed One" in Greek.

Unless you are speaking figuratively? I am very confused.

 

[childeye 2]

That doesn't make sense though given that at least some of the options just mentioned are incompatible with one another.

It doesn't make sense that there are false images of god?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It doesn't make sense that there are false images of god?

It doesn't make sense to say that naturalism, which entails atheism, constitutes an "image of God" at all. And yet that's what you seem to be saying, or at least it seems to follow from what you are saying.