The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I've already demonstrated to you why there is a requirement for a God.

No you didn't.

A demonstration would at the very least require an epistemological model by which information about this 'god' character may be reliably gleaned, some verifiable mechanism by which it may causally integrate with the natural world and some line of reasoning to show that it is necessarily an exclusive explanation.

You have none of that. All you have are vacuous naked assertions.

 

[-57]

No you didn't.

A demonstration would at the very least require an epistemological model by which information about this 'god' character may be reliably gleaned, some verifiable mechanism by which it may causally integrate with the natural world and some line of reasoning to show that it is necessarily an exclusive explanation.

You have none of that. All you have are vacuous naked assertions.

In a nut shell....if there wasn't an uncaused creator...there would be nothing today.

Addressing the second point...Post 3 in this thread..

 

[Athée]

I've already demonstrated to you why there is a requirement for a God. Do I need to repost it?

Actually you haven't and that's the point. You have asserted that the existence of the universe requires an explanation and you jump from that fact to your preferred conclusion, that your God did it. This is not demonstration. Moreover, you have not meaningfuly interacted with any of the objections. This idea of personhood that we are discussing stems from one such objection. You claimed that the explanation for the universe is a personal being that exists outside of time and matter. I am asking you to demonstrate that this is in fact the case. All our observations of persons require both time and matter but you are claiming that you know of one/three where this requirement of time and matter does not pertain. Don't just assert that this is the case, demonstrate it please.

 

[-57]

Actually you haven't and that's the point. You have asserted that the existence of the universe requires an explanation and you jump from that fact to your preferred conclusion, that your God did it. This is not demonstration. Moreover, you have not meaningfuly interacted with any of the objections. This idea of personhood that we are discussing stems from one such objection. You claimed that the explanation for the universe is a personal being that exists outside of time and matter. I am asking you to demonstrate that this is in fact the case. All our observations of persons require both time and matter but you are claiming that you know of one/three where this requirement of time and matter does not pertain. Don't just assert that this is the case, demonstrate it please.

I thought I explained to you that stuff can't create itself from nothing.
This means, if there is stuff there had to have been a self existing external being.

 

[Athée]

I thought I explained to you that stuff can't create itself from nothing.
This means, if there is stuff there had to have been a self existing external being.

Again you didn't explain that, you claimed it, which is different. But for now let's say I agree that our universe had to have a cause external to itself. You are claiming that cause is a being. What does it mean to be a being in your mind? What distinguishes a being from a rock?

 

[-57]

Again you didn't explain that, you claimed it, which is different. But for now let's say I agree that our universe had to have a cause external to itself. You are claiming that cause is a being. What does it mean to be a being in your mind? What distinguishes a being from a rock?

Rocks can't think.

 

[Athée]

Rocks can't think.

OK so thinking is a quality of a being. As far as we have ever observed thinking requires a physical brain. What evidence do you have that thinking is possible without a brain and body?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Do you have an argument for thinking the author of Genesis is necessarily purporting to report a global flood as opposed to one that say, covered the known world at that time? I would love to see it.

In addition, I would love to see your argument that in fact a global flood did not occur.

Genesis and the flood is a little off topic for this thread. Its important to note that the argument isnt necessarily restricted to the God of Abraham, just "a God" . Theoretically, the argument can apply to any god in general.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

OP hat on:

In order to help keep this thread on topic I added a note to the op.
In this argument, God can be defined as "a being that which none greater can be imagined".

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Again you didn't explain that, you claimed it, which is different. But for now let's say I agree that our universe had to have a cause external to itself. You are claiming that cause is a being. What does it mean to be a being in your mind? What distinguishes a being from a rock?

That is an awesome question. How do we define a "being"?

 

[Athée]

OP hat on:

In order to help keep this thread on topic I added a note to the op.
In this argument, God can be defined as "a being that which none greater can be imagined".

How conveniently that will dovetail into your ontological argument

 

[Athée]

That is an awesome question. How do we define a "being"?

That's why I asked it!
I think it is critical since so much of what I think makes up a being doesn't make sense without space time and matter. Beings are distinct entries with a sense of personhood, of self, they can think, feel, reason, intend and desire. I'm sure there are a great many other qualities we can come up with but again we have only ever observed beings that are part of spacetime. I don't see a way we can rationally justify saying that a being can exist without time, or can think without a brain etc. We can posit that such a being exists but that is not the same as having a ratuonally justified belief that such a being actually exists. I can posit a universe sized pink unicorn but I am not rationally justified in believing that such a being exists.
Thoughts?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

OP hat on:

In order to help keep this thread on topic I added a note to the op.
In this argument, God can be defined as "a being that which none greater can be imagined".

I'm imagining a being that doesn't necessitate the invention of crappy apologetic arguments like Kalam.

There. I just imagined a being greater than "God". That was easy.

 

[doubtingmerle]

OP hat on:

In order to help keep this thread on topic I added a note to the op.
In this argument, God can be defined as "a being that which none greater can be imagined".

Then it would seem to me there is no God. For however great any being is, I can always imagine one slightly greater. For instance, if you say God created and rules the entire universe, I can imagine a God who made and rules a different universe that is twice as big.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm imagining a being that doesn't necessitate the invention of crappy apologetic arguments like Kalam.

This could get interesting. I can imagine one who does not command his followers to kill Midianite babies.

 

[Athée]

It seems like we are all piling on objections to the ontological argument. I agree, this idea of the greatest conceivable being is by definition subjective and many of you have pointed out the problems with this. Keep in mind though we still dont have a reason to accept a being as a cause of the universe, so we may he getting ahead of ourselves

 

[doubtingmerle]

It seems like we are all piling on objections to the ontological argument. I agree, this idea of the greatest conceivable being is by definition subjective and many of you have pointed out the problems with this. Keep in mind though we still dont have a reason to accept a being as a cause of the universe, so we may he getting ahead of ourselves

You bring up an interesting point about a spirit hardly having a mind. In fact C. S. Lewis thought the reason God made a world and bodies was to allow humans to interact and express their being. Without physical bodies, it is difficult to even imagine a society.

 

[Athée]

You bring up an interesting point about a spirit hardly having a mind. In fact C. S. Lewis thought the reason God made a world and bodies was to allow humans to interact and express their being. Without physical bodies, it is difficult to even imagine a society.

I would have said that there is no evidence of a spirt at all and that everything we call personhood is a function of the brain. That said, while we can imagine a society without bodies it really would be nothing like the one we observe now. In any case I will wait for a demonstration that a being can exist without a body before I send too much time on the science fiction of imagining a body less society

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

How conveniently that will dovetail into your ontological argument

[emoji48] My plan for world domination is at hand. Bwahaha!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Then it would seem to me there is no God. For however great any being is, I can always imagine one slightly greater. For instance, if you say God created and rules the entire universe, I can imagine a God who made and rules a different universe that is twice as big.

Wrong. If you can imagin a being greater...that being would be God. Nice try but i will dive into that further in another thread. Its going to be fun.