The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[DogmaHunter]

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.

The Noah Flood, if taken like actual history, is a model that makes predictions.
As in, if it happened, it will have left evidence behind. Taking the story as writting, it makes a couple of obvious predictions concerning genetics and geology.

None of these predictions hold up when tested.
This rules out the story as being actual history.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I made a valid point. He went on a rant. You commended his rant. /explanation

I did not rant.

I stated an obvious fact: unfalsifiable models aren't explanations of anything. They are just empty, meaningless and useless assertions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I was talking about the initial...first cause.

I know. Please answer the questions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I believe what the bibles says...there was a creator.

Yes, we know what you believe.

The question is: why?

 

[DogmaHunter]

And as stephen hawking explained in his article to the scientific journal, all those possibilities were false. Unless you disagree with stephen hawking?

Hmmm....

Is this the same Stephen Hawking that said that the universe doesn't require a creator?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Is this the same Stephen Hawking that said that the universe doesn't require a creator?

One would think so, but apparently the source that quote mined Hawking decided not to mine that tidbit.

 

[-57]

Yes, we know what you believe.

The question is: why?

The problem for you is that apparently you have not been given the ability to believe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem for you is that apparently you have not been given the ability to believe.

I believe lots of things, so clearly that is wrong.
Perhaps you should try answering the question.

 

[-57]

I believe lots of things, so clearly that is wrong.
Perhaps you should try answering the question.

You claim to be an atheist...your wrong coming off the starting block.
For stuff to exist there HAS to be a God. That's one argument YOU can't win.

 

[Athée]

Given that we are not trying to classify a fetus as a person, I dont understand how personhood laws apply.

Fair enough, I was trying to keep the language consistent but perhaps that made my point unclear. When you say the laws of physics have been discovered to require matter, you are saying that every time we observe physics happening they are acting on matter and that everything we understand about physics suggest that without matter physics wouldn't work. You conclude therefore that eternal physics is impossible. By the same argument every person we have ever observed has required matter and space time to exist, everything we understand about how a person works suggests that a person wouldn't work without matter and space time. As such we can conclude that there are no eternal persons existing outside of spacetime. And to run it a third time, every cause we have ever observed has required time and matter to effect its change. Everything we understand about causes suggests that it would be impossible to cause anything without time and matter. Therefore we can conclude that there is no eternal cause outside of time.
This is why I see special pleading in your argument. You want to use this idea of observation and intuitive truths to sweep away all possible explanations for the universe except your own preference one, even though it falls prey to exactly the same objections you raise against the others.
So why is this not special pleading again?

 

[-57]

everything we understand about how a person works suggests that a person wouldn't work without matter and space time. As such we can conclude that there are no eternal persons existing outside of spacetime

You are assuming God is like us? Flesh and blood?

 

[Athée]

You are assuming God is like us? Flesh and blood?

I'm saying the only model of personhood we have ever observed requires a body, so I am asking on what basis we are making the leap from...there is an explanation for our universe. ..to persons that violate all the known, observable truths about personhood exist?

 

[-57]

I'm saying the only model of personhood we have ever observed requires a body, so I am asking on what basis we are making the leap from...there is an explanation for our universe. ..to persons that violate all the known, observable truths about personhood exist?

The personhood of the trinity doesn't require a body.
The observable truth requires a God. You have no way around that.

 

[Athée]

The personhood of the trinity doesn't require a body.
The observable truth requires a God. You have no way around that.

Argument by assertion is not very convincing. I could assert that the cause of the universe is a transcendent rock but I doubt you would be convinced Please demonstrate how it is possible to be a person without a body.

 

[-57]

Argument by assertion is not very convincing. I could assert that the cause of the universe is a transcendent rock but I doubt you would be convinced Please demonstrate how it is possible to be a person without a body.

What is your definition of personhood? Is it limited to flesh and blood?

 

[Athée]

What is your definition of personhood? Is it limited to flesh and blood?

The only persons I have ever observed have required a body. How can there be personhood without one?

Edited to answer the question

I don't know if personhood is limited to a physical reality but I believe that it is. Why do I believe this, because there is no evidence that there is anything non material that is part of personhood.

 

[PapaZoom]

I did not rant.

I stated an obvious fact: unfalsifiable models aren't explanations of anything. They are just empty, meaningless and useless assertions.

Actually you did rant. Now you're at least calmly stating your pov which is far more respectful and engaging.

 

[-57]

The only persons I have ever observed have required a body. How can there be personhood without one?

Edited to answer the question

I don't know if personhood is limited to a physical reality but I believe that it is. Why do I believe this, because there is no evidence that there is anything non material that is part of personhood.

You do realize you're posting on a christian forum?

 

[Athée]

You do realize you're posting on a christian forum?

Yes of course. I suspect that you believe that there is a soul and that God is a person/s without a body. What I am asking you for is more than your assertion that you believe this to be true. I am asking you why you believe those things are in fact the case. Perhaps now that we have cleared that up you could answer the question.

 

[-57]

Yes of course. I suspect that you believe that there is a soul and that God is a person/s without a body. What I am asking you for is more than your assertion that you believe this to be true. I am asking you why you believe those things are in fact the case. Perhaps now that we have cleared that up you could answer the question.

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