The circular argument of God and miracles

[quatona]

I disagree. They didn't really destroy the argument. They offered different understandings for the terms used in the argument, noting that there are certain presuppositions carried in each premise. I happen to think that the argument as Craig presents, and the presuppositions carried within each premise are valid. I think you can debate the presuppositions, sure, but granting those, the conclusion of the argument logically follows. The atheist hasn't shown that the alternative understandings to terms and ideas like "nothing" and "begins to exist" are true, rather they're just alternatives to adopt to avoid carrying a presupposition in the argument. So rather than destroying the argument, it's providing alternatives, or rather, skepticism towards presuppositions in the argument. However, if one agrees with the presuppositions, then one ought to say that the Kalam is a good argument. You're free to disagree with the presuppositions, but why think your alternatives, if any, are superior?

One of the fundamental problem of the argument is: The keyterms (like "begin to exist", "cause", "nothing"...) are used inconsistently throughout the argument.

 

[Near]

One of the fundamental problem of the argument is: The keyterms (like "begin to exist", "cause", "nothing"...) are used inconsistently throughout the argument.

Which parts?

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I disagree. They didn't really destroy the argument. They offered different understandings for the terms used in the argument, noting that there are certain presuppositions carried in each premise. I happen to think that the argument as Craig presents, and the presuppositions carried within each premise are valid. I think you can debate the presuppositions, sure, but granting those, the conclusion of the argument logically follows. The atheist hasn't shown that the alternative understandings to terms and ideas like "nothing" and "begins to exist" are true, rather they're just alternatives to adopt to avoid carrying a presupposition in the argument. So rather than destroying the argument, it's providing alternatives, or rather, skepticism towards presuppositions in the argument. However, if one agrees with the presuppositions, then one ought to say that the Kalam is a good argument. You're free to disagree with the presuppositions, but why think your alternatives, if any, are superior?

Ignoring the structural weaknesses of the argument:

In any argument, if the premises can't be demonstrated, then the argument can't be shown as sound.

Neither premise in the Kalam argument has been demonstrated true in any way. Trying to use reasoning to imply truth for either premise only leads to assumptions. Assumptions can't show that an argument is sound.

And even if the argument were sound, it would be a non sequitur to imply a god from it.

Why do you assume I would have any alternatives?

 

[Near]

Ignoring the structural weaknesses of the argument:

In any argument, if the premises can't be demonstrated, then the argument can't be shown as sound.

Neither premise in the Kalam argument has been demonstrated true in any way. Trying to use reasoning to imply truth for either premise only leads to assumptions. Assumptions can't show that an argument is sound.

And even if the argument were sound, it would be a non sequitur to imply a god from it.

Why do you assume I would have any alternatives?

If one believes the premises are true, then one ought to think it's a good argument.
If you don't believe the premises are true, you're free to suspend judgement, or believe in alternatives to the premises, or suspend judgement and belief completely. I think it's much more likely than not that the premises are true, based on what I've learned about causality, and the universe.
I don't think the premises have to be demonstrated to be true, rather they just have to be more probable than not to be a good argument.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If one believes the premises are true, then one ought to think it's a good argument.
If you don't believe the premises are true, you're free to suspend judgement, or believe in alternatives to the premises, or suspend judgement and belief completely. I think it's much more likely than not that the premises are true, based on what I've learned about causality, and the universe.
I don't think the premises have to be demonstrated to be true, rather they just have to be more probable than not to be a good argument.

Belief in the truth of premises isn't what makes an argument sound in Philosophy. The premises actually have to be true. And if you can't show that the premises are true, then the argument is undecided. Which means believing the argument to be true (or even likely true) is irrational.

And knowing anything about causality here on Earth doesn't relate to the beginning of the universe. Just because the members of a set have a particular property doesn't mean the set itself has that property. So whatever we know about causality has actually nothing to do with the subject at hand unless you can demonstrate that the universe itself necessarily falls under the same laws as the things within it.

 

[quatona]

Which parts?

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause."

Do you want an in-depth discussion of the argument?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...You haven't proven to me that you're a real person, and not an AI. So, please send me evidence that you're not an AI, or I'd be delusional to believe that you're a human. Otherwise, I'd be believing... without evidence.

Isn't the fact that you're responding to his points as if he was human sufficient evidence? If he's an AI, he's passed the Turing test here.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause."

These are two quite different meanings of 'begin to exist'; in our experience, we only see the restructuring of matter & energy into different forms; it's only the forms that we perceive as beginning to exist, nothing is created ex-nihilo (it seems to be against the rules within the universe). The universe as we know it began at the big bang, we don't know if anything preceded that - if something preceded it the premise is on shaky ground, and if it really came from or was created from nothing, 'begins to exist' is equivocal between the premises. Not to mention the fallacy of composition, in suggesting that the universe itself must follow the rules that apply to its contents.

That's just one approach to the philosophical flaws in the argument when made that way - which may be why Craig wraps it in a lot of sciency-sounding bafflegab.

 

[miknik5]

I have never heard any Christian use that argument and would consider him or her irrational if they did. The argument which I have heard points to the marvelously intricate organization of matter toward's a purpose as the reason for belief in a designer or creator.

About honesty. Well, both might be honest in their beliefs.

There is still only One Truth

One either knows it and attests to and holds to that Truth of he/she changes with every new idea that tickles hid/her fancy

 

[Radrook]

There is still only One Truth

One either knows it and attests to and holds to that Truth of he/she changes with every new idea that tickles hid/her fancy

I agree that beyond all creature perceptions there is a reality which exists regardless of changing human opinions.

 

[miknik5]

Are you suggesting that I wasn't a Christian?

If you are suggesting you are then you believe in what you began in and no matter what you keep ever before you in remembrance what you began in and you Remain in Him and do not "go out" from Him

 

[miknik5]

Are you saying that if enough people believe it for long enough it must be true? The majority of religions have lasted longer than Christianity, so does that mean they correspond to truth too (or even more, if time is the measure)?

Yup; as far back as we have records, people have been prone to superstitious and magical thinking; ghosts, spirits, elves, little people, fate, luck, polytheism, etc. Like scepticism, monotheism is also relatively recent. Where does this leave the argument?

Frumious.
That same outpouring of The Holy Spirit on His Disciples then...is the same outpouring on His Disciples today

That is why the Truth is preached and the witnesses of That Truth still speak

That sir is the evidence. That God is the one who let His Ligjt shine and gave us the knowledge of His Glory, His Light, His Truth, His Grace, His Salvation all in the "face of Jesus"

 

[miknik5]

I agree that beyond all creature perceptions there is a reality which exists regardless of changing human opinions.

But the verdict is that Light has come into the world and that men everywhere are called to know and to grow in the knowledge of This One Truth

 

[Radrook]

One of the key problems in accepting the existence of things that had no beginning is that we live in a perceived reality that in order for things to exist they had to have a point in time where they emerged and another point in time where they were absent. So our reasoning sensibilities recoil from any claims of eternal existence and our mind's find such a propose reality extremely hard to fathom.

 

[Radrook]

But the verdict is that Light has come into the world and that men everywhere are called to know and to grow in the knowledge of This One Truth

I agree, teaching that mankind experienced a fall which tethered it to sin and death and from which it needed redemption via a sacrificial savior is a central Christian doctrine.

Actually, its foundation can be traced to Genesis 3:15 where God is described as uttering a prophecy concerning a seed or redeemer.
This theme is interwoven throughout the scriptures until it has its fulfillment in Christ.

So yes, I am aware of the light to which you are referring.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Frumious.
That same outpouring of The Holy Spirit on His Disciples then...is the same outpouring on His Disciples today

That is why the Truth is preached and the witnesses of That Truth still speak

That sir is the evidence. That God is the one who let His Ligjt shine and gave us the knowledge of His Glory, His Light, His Truth, His Grace, His Salvation all in the "face of Jesus"

Not sure whether it's the language or the way it's expressed, but I can't make sense of that as a response to my post... it sounds like unrelated assertion and proselytizing; perhaps you could rephrase it in colloquial English?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If you are suggesting you are then you believe in what you began in and no matter what you keep ever before you in remembrance what you began in and you Remain in Him and do not "go out" from Him

This is exceedingly difficult to parse. But I think I may have it.

I'm not suggesting I am a Christian. I asked if you're insinuating that I wasn't.

 

[miknik5]

No worries, mine was a little facetious too <smiley>. The question was too easy a target, I couldn't resist - sorry. As Oscar Wilde said, "I can resist anything but temptation".

That's very much a chicken and egg kind of argument. The answer lies with evolution; that was basically sorted in 1870.

Okay. So we are back to the same dividing line between us

The starting point of all things.
Because man can only back into what already exists in order to draw conclusions to explain his world around him

But he can only go back so far based on this method

He can't go back to the starting point before either the egg or the chicken came into being in the world

Not to mention that the world came into being even before the man

 

[miknik5]

This is exceedingly difficult to parse. But I think I may have it.

I'm not suggesting I am a Christian. I asked if you're insinuating that I wasn't.

I can't insinuate anything. Your relationship with the Savior who is Lord is your relationship and He is Lord

No man can say who will ascend or who will descend. But he can preach the Truth. And God alone is the One who knows and sees that True Confession upon the heart. This isn't hidden from God


Romans 10 is sufficient

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I can't insinuate anything. Your relationship with the Savior who is Lord is your relationship and He is Lord

No man can say who will ascend or who will descend. But he can preach the Truth. And God alone is the One who knows and sees that True Confession upon the heart. This isn't hidden from God


Romans 10 is sufficient

Or none of it is real.