|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3097 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
Considering your take on the issue of virtual particles;
Can you demonstrate something beginning to exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3097 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: You could postulate a god that always existed and therefore did not begin to exist. Just sayin'. You could apply Occam's razer, postulate a universe that always existed and therefore did not begin to exist or require a creator to create it, as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3097 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: So? That's beside the point that there are gods that can be postulated that didn't begin to exist. True, but your point is irrelivant, as it does pertain to the Kalam cosmological argument (the topic of this thread).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3097 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
Are you sure? I thought the Kalam Get-Outta-First-Cause-Free card was the eternal-ness of the god? That it being eternal meant that it, itself, didn't need a cause. I am sure, just because I claimed my comment was pertinent to the Kalam cosmological argument, doesn't mean it was necessarily in favor of it. Even if there is an eternally existing god, if the universe is eternally existing as well, the Kalam cosmological argument still falls apart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3097 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined:
|
I meant: Are you sure my point was irrelevant... Yes, I am sure your point was irrelevant. That "there are gods that can be postulated that didn't begin to exist" is beside the point. Unless you can demonstrate how/why this "god" you are postulating is necessarily "without cause", your argument is unsound and is thus irrelevant.
I didn't read it as in favor of it, but as being, itself, irrelevant. Would you mind explaining how it was irrelevant?
Sure, but that's just denying one of the premises of the argument. Rejecting the premise, actually. Not denying.
Which is fine, you can reject it on that bases... but if we're discussing the argument, itself, then we should stick to the premises. And one of those is the universe not being eternal.
So, by your account, I'm not discussing the premises by addressing the argument's soundness? Did I misunderstand that? Didn't you just point out that I was rejecting the premise? How is that not addresses the premises?
This lead to the claim that any god postulated would also need a cause, which I rebut with the postulation of an eternal god (which wouldn't require a cause). Though it would require an explanation lest it can be dismissed as easily as it was concieved. For example;If the person known as "Catholic Scientist" on EVCforum.net has made a post on EVCforum.net then the person known as "Catholic Scientist" on EVCforum.net is a man-sized cartoon chicken. The person known as "Catholic Scientist" on EVCforum.net has made posts on EVCforum.net. Therefore, the person known as "Catholic Scientist" on EVCforum.net is a man-sized cartoon chicken. This is is a valid argument.
This lead to the claim that any god postulated would also need a cause, which I rebut with the postulation of an eternal god (which wouldn't require a cause). Then you come in with Occams razor and an eternal universe and say that my point is off topic Oh? Could you quote me where I accused you of being off topic? I would greatly appreciate it.
I'm not seeing the relevance of your point nor how mine is irrelevant. Apparantly.
And I don't see how my rebuttal of any god also requiring a cause has been dealt with within the Kalam argument. Just as I can't see where I made the claim that it did. Strawmen aren't anybody's friends.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3097 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
Well this is getting silly... but I ain't gonna not reply. Silly...
Odd that one of the proponents of the KA made my exact same point in Message 126... You'll have to forgive me, I fail to see how that was relivant. Perhaps you could explain your meaning?
But I'm staying within the premises. Ya know, assuming them true for the sake of arguing? An excelent way to determine the validity of an argument, however, I never claimed I was addressing the validity if the argument, now did I? Once again, strawmen are not your friends.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause, and an eternal god wouldn't begin to exist, so we don't have a reason for supposing its cause. You don't have to assume the premesis are true, but if I am for the sake of arguing, then its beside the point for you to start talking about the premises not being true. You seem to be stuck on the idea that in order to address an argument you must assume all of the premises are true and look for flaws in the argument's structure... Why is validity your end all of end all?
I can assume your premesis are true and discuss the validity of the argument or come to the conclusion that I am a man-sized cartoon chicken. I invite you to do so, there is a reason why I made my argument as silly as it is. The below argument is a syllagism presented in modus ponens form.
quote: So...Are you a man-sized cartoon chicken? Huh? I'm saying that rejecting an argument because the premises aren't true is perfectly fine, Yet, you still have contention with me doing so...
but if someone is assuming the premesis are true for the sake of argument, then its beside the point to argue that the premesis aren't actually true. Its just a different argument. I agree, but here's the kicker, where in our exchange did we agree that this was what we were discussing..?
quote: This is the first instance in our exchange where this issue was brought up. You pointed out that I rejected a premise and informed me that " ...if we're discussing the argument, itself, then we should stick to the premises". 1) How is discussing why I am rejecting a premise in the argument -not- discussing the argument itself? 2) Why should we "stick to the premises" if we are discussing the argument, itself?
In Message 93, the author was exploring one of the premesis: Okay, now point out where you agreed on your rule set that says the topic can only be discussed by first agreeing to accept the premises as true.
And you still haven't addressed my point: Within the KA, how would an eternal god require a cause? You still havent addressed my point: Why do you keep insisting that man-sized cartoon chickens are proof of an eternal god? (Hint: I'm utilizing the same fallacy here you are.) (I figure, if you're going to accuse me of being silly, I might as well be silly.) He's jumbo-sized and wears a disguise,You're not a man, you're a chicken, Boo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3097 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: You said that me bringing up an eternal god was irrlevent the KA, but then a proponent of the KA brought up god being eternal as part of their argument for it. Catholic Scientist writes: So? That's beside the point that there are gods that can be postulated that didn't begin to exist. True, but your point is irrelivant, as it does pertain to the Kalam cosmological argument (the topic of this thread). The point I was refering to, if you'll note, was the point you made in the quote I provided. I later go on to try and clearify the matter by directly quoting you again and expanding upon my meaning. (bold added for clairity)
Evlreala writes: Yes, I am sure your point was irrelevant. That "there are gods that can be postulated that didn't begin to exist" is beside the point. Unless you can demonstrate how/why this "god" you are postulating is necessarily "without cause", your argument is unsound and is thus irrelevant. By this point, if you misunderstand the context of my claim, I feel it is your own fault. Catholic Scientist writes: I never said that you claimed you were... you're the one with straw in your teeth. Evlreala writes: I agree, but here's the kicker, where in our exchange did we agree that this was what we were discussing..? Seriously? Don't have to: it was implicit. Seriously? That's your defence?In what way/shape/form was that implied? Simply making stuff up doesn't make it so. The rest of your reply is you simply being insulting, childish, small, and rude. Grow up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3097 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined:
|
Well I did misunderstand what you were saying to me, so I apologize for that. You apologise for the unintentional misrepresentation, but not for;the intentional misrepresentation.. the ad homminem attacks.. the childish behavior.. or the flagrant disregard of civil discourse. Duly noted.
But now that I get it, I'd rather take back all the time I've wasted on it than pursue it any farther. Especially since there are actual proponants of the KA making the same point; we don't need me advocating it too. Consider the matter dropped.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3097 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
And yet, you continue to respond..
Have fun with that. =D
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024