"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[Ana the Ist]

Aha, William Lane Craig, reasonable faith, the Kalam Cosmological Argument etc..
I like how he makes a minced meat out of Richard D. and other atheists / God-haters / theophobes / materialists, with sound arguments.
I guess it's why WLC is hated so much...

It's kinda funny you mentioned him using the Kalam CA and "sound arguments' at the same time.

It's a bit like saying..."I like the way he uses circular reasoning and pure mathematics to win debates."

Does anyone know if he still uses the KCA? I thought it's been so thoroughly ripped apart it's been abandoned entirely....except for the occasional amateur online apologists.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's kinda funny you mentioned him using the Kalam CA and "sound arguments' at the same time.

It's a bit like saying..."I like the way he uses circular reasoning and pure mathematics to win debates."

So what do you not understand about the KCA?

Does anyone know if he still uses the KCA? I thought it's been so thoroughly ripped apart it's been abandoned entirely....except for the occasional amateur online apologists.

O, i see, you just hate the KCA.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So what do you not understand about the KCA?O, i see, you just hate the KCA.

Lol there's nothing I don't understand about it? I'm guessing you don't understand the logical errors inherent in it?

 

[Hieronymus]

Lol there's nothing I don't understand about it? I'm guessing you don't understand the logical errors inherent in it?

Ya right...
Well, enlighten me then, and explain how effects can be un-caused.

 

[The Cadet]

So what do you not understand about the KCA?

Why Christians pretend it matters in the slightest to their belief system. Even if you grant each and every premise and conclusion of Kalam (which I wouldn't), it does not get you to "Yahweh, God of the bible". It gets you to some generic "first mover" that has absolutely no meaning for the Christian faith whatsoever. So even ignoring the numerous fallacies with Kalam, why do Christians bother with it?

 

[The Cadet]

Ya right...
Well, enlighten me then, and explain how effects can be un-caused.

I'm not sure. For some reason, you seem to think that God can be un-caused, maybe you should start.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm not sure. For some reason, you seem to think that God can be un-caused, maybe you should start.

You see, i told you you missed the gist of it.
The Original Cause CAN NOT be caused, by definition.
What more can be said?

 

[The Cadet]

The Original Cause CAN NOT be caused, by definition.

Right, and that's blatantly obvious special pleading. There's no reason your God could not have been caused by a real original cause. There's no reason why the Universe could not be the original cause. But in any case, why does it matter? You don't believe in a blank "first cause". You believe in a specific, personal deity. One whose attributes cannot be demonstrated in any way within the Kalam framework. So why are you using the argument in the first place?

 

[Hieronymus]

Right, and that's blatantly obvious special pleading.

But you can't explain why, right?

There's no reason your God

It's not my God, i am his. And so are you, because He caused existence and therefore owns it, obviously.

could not have been caused by a real original cause.

He IS the Original Cause, by definition.

There's no reason why the Universe could not be the original cause.

There are many reasons why the universe is most probably caused.

But in any case, why does it matter? You don't believe in a blank "first cause". You believe in a specific, personal deity.

False dichotomy.

One whose attributes cannot be demonstrated in any way within the Kalam framework. So why are you using the argument in the first place?

I told you.
How many times do you want me to repeat myself?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ya right...
Well, enlighten me then, and explain how effects can be un-caused.

Hang on, you're getting ahead of yourself, aren't you? You would first need to present what you are arguing. It's not clear.

 

[Hieronymus]

Hang on, you're getting ahead of yourself, aren't you?

No, you're lagging behind i.m.h.o.

You would first need to present what you are arguing. It's not clear.

I'm arguing the obvious, namely that an effect (like in this case existence and reality itself) has a cause.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ya right...
Well, enlighten me then, and explain how effects can be un-caused.

It's not my argument lol.

Would I be right in assuming you believe that god is "uncaused"?

If that's the case...then the KCA is worthless, you believe that "uncaused" things exist.

 

[The Cadet]

But you can't explain why, right?

Dan barker put it very nicely:

The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question.
​

He IS the Original Cause, by definition.

Okay, but does he have any other attributes? Does anything about Him follow from this?

False dichotomy.

It's not a dichotomy. It's pointing out that your argument is extremely incomplete. And you can't get from "arbitrary deistic god" to "Yahweh". If Kalam is your reason for believing in the Christian God, then it's a really bad reason. And if it's not your reason for believing in God, why present it?

I told you.
How many times do you want me to repeat myself?

I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Could you please quote it again?

 

[Hieronymus]

It's not my argument lol.

Would I be right in assuming you believe that god is "uncaused"?

You can read, no?
The Original Cause CAN NOT be caused.
What's so hard for you to grasp here?

 

[Hieronymus]

Dan barker put it very nicely:

The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE).​

Singular,my friend.
I think some call it a "singularity", which is 'something' that was before the universe was, having all the traits necessary for what we have today.​

 

[The Cadet]

I'm arguing the obvious, namely that an effect (like in this case existence and reality itself) has a cause.

Can you demonstrate this claim? You claim it's "obvious", so it should be trivial to demonstrate, no?

(Funnily enough, this is a direct application of what SysiphusRedeemed refers to as "the Kalam Cosmological Fallacy".)

 

[Hieronymus]

Can you demonstrate this claim? You claim it's "obvious", so it should be trivial to demonstrate, no?

You seriously ask me to explain why an effect has a cause?

 

[The Cadet]

Singular,my friend.
I think some call it a "singularity", which is 'something' that was before the universe was, having all the traits necessary for what we have today.​

Okay, but if the set of objects that do not have a cause is just "God", then that's exactly what Barker is talking about:

If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question.​

 

[Hieronymus]

Okay, but if the set of objects

Good Lord...
Not a set, it's singular.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You can read, no?
The Original Cause CAN NOT be caused.
What's so hard for you to grasp here?

Lol wonderful...so there are things which aren't caused. Argument refuted.