@Sheldon I think we are able to have some kind of knowledge that God is, and make some statements about what God is not, based on general conditions about the world. God could then be known as the first necessary and intelligent cause of the world.
Have I? Maybe in passing to move on to something else?
Like what, and why do you think this, and which deity, and what verifiable objective evidence do you have it exists?
Yes, and the intent was less important than that the claims remain just bare assertions so far. I hope we are not just heading for some version of the Kalam Cosmological argument? As I have yet to see it used without at least three known common logical fallacies. Usually an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, a false equivalence fallacy, and various begging the question fallacies.
Interesting. I think the Kalam Cosmological Argument works IF and to the extent that we could show the whole of the universe has a beginning. But I think at most we can say it’s probable (in an epistemic, non-quantitative sense), but I don’t think it has been successfully proven that the world strictly has a beginning in time.
In that sense, the Kalam Cosmological Argument at best concludes “Unless the universe didn’t begin, God exist.”
Thoughts? Could you detail more what you think are fallacies of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Maybe it’s worth starting a new thread for that…
But no, that’s not the arguments I will want to make.
So, in front of the membership, YOU ADMIT that you are to SCARED to discuss your division of faith! LOL!
This is quite an irony since you are in an Atheist Forum where your initial topic included a god concept! Therefore, when did you turn into a little wussy-boy and start having the notion that you couldn’t defend your god and religion, was it in early adulthood, or later as an adult?
We’ve seen many pseudo-religionists like you that have to RUN AWAY from their chosen religion of the Bronze and Iron Age for obvious reasons, where their faith just doesn’t fit within the 21st Century!
NEXT PSEUDO-RELIGIONIST LIKE THE SCARED … “METROLOGIST” …THAT CAN’T DEFEND THEIR FAITH, BUT ONLY TO RUN AWAY AND HIDE FROM IT IN DISCUSSION, WILL BE …?
The fish aren’t biting here mr Iconoclast. 
3 Likes
Well that is why it is a false equivalence, since the word beginning has no meaning without time, which is a characteristic of the physical universe. Even then it doesn’t work, as we don’t know that the big bang needed a cause at all. This is also a subjective argument, so not the verifiable objective evidence you claimed you had, and one wonders if you have that why we would be bothering with widely debunked first cause arguments.
Even if the universe began it doesn’t objectively evidence a cause, let alone a deity, and of course it no more evidences any of the Abrahamic deities than it does Mācuīlcōzcacuāuhtli the Aztec deity of gluttony.
Yes, but you do see the irony of you asking me to evidence a claim right?
Then best we move on to your “objectively verifiable evidence” don’t you think? Since for me that would be the main show, indeed I’m guessing it would be global news if it turns out to be the case.
Too…not to, and I don’t believe he mentioned any fear at all.
Is it really necessary to resort to ad hominem in your first exchange with this poster? I don’t this is helpful tbh.
4 Likes
One of the great things about being a primate is the ability to learn from the misfortune of others. I’ve learned from your unfortunate run in with that user.
1 Like
How do you “Include God” when you have not demonstrated such a thing is even possible? You don’t get to imagine things into existence.
1 Like
I’m curious if his use of the KCA loses anything if we imagine another cause other than the deity he’s positing, and we arbitrarily assign it the same characteristics, using the same begging the question fallacies we usually see used in first cause arguments to achieve this?
If it doesn’t then that is another sign the argument is very poorly reasoned. FYI I have never see a first cause argument where that was not the case.
2 Likes
The kind of “empirical” evidence that I want to put forward is in fact not any sort of special observation, or extraordinary in character. Rather, it is most ordinary in character: stuff exists that doesn’t have to. And the argument that moves from this general sort of observation to the claim that there exists a first necessary cause of being which I call “God” is indeed a kind of first cause argument.
I am aware that some first cause arguments do not stand to scrutiny, but I do not think that is generally true of anything we might call a first cause argument. In fact, I think several such arguments can be formulated that are quite conclusive.
Some remarks in reply to various points made:
Yes time, is a characteristic of the physical universe, and there is no before time.Yet it is still meaningful to say that the universe has a temporal beginning, even if this beginning is not a moment in time. Indeed, a moment in time requires time before and time after. There is, in that sense, no first moment. But it is possible that there be a limit to how far back time goes. And this limit is like a moment and can be “when” the universe begins to be, where “when” is taken with respect to the universe’s own forward time. In some physical sense, we know with a relatively small error bar, that the universe is 13.8 billions years old
This occasions the general point that, whatever doesn’t need a cause, but is the cause of everything else, I (along with the better part of serious classical theists) call God. After arguments of existence are made, it would be appropriate to seek out what properties can be attributed to this being, and in particular, whether there can be more than one of such beings with these attributes.
If the Primeval Atom is necessary in that strong sense of uncaused first cause, then the Primeval Atom is what I mean by God. Note however that mere spontaneity is not what I mean by uncaused. For example nuclear decay is spontaneous, it is not uncaused. For one, there is no decay without atoms; and decay rates are not random.
1 Like
@Sheldon, I don’t think it’s the KCA, I think he’s building his arguments on the Aquinas Five Ways.
1 Like
That’s not evidence, that’s a bare assertion.
You missed out the word abracadabra, seriously this is far from objectively verifiable evidence as one can imagine.
Is the drum roll necessary, just present such an argument? Then you can ex[lain why we are bothering when you claim to have objectively verifiable evidence?
We don’t know what may and may not have existed prior to the big bang.
No it isn’t.
Beginning
noun
- the point in time or space at which something begins.
Is it, can you demonstrate something beyond this bare assertion to support this possibility?
Nope, the word begin as we can see above is inadequate and inaccurate here. Though it’s hardly surprising our language is inadequate given we are talking about the current limit of our knowledge.
yes, we know that the universe we currently observe has a point of origin, beyond that we can’t say what existed.
I see words, I don’t know what those words are trying to say. However we cannot say that the universe needed a cause, unless you can demonstrate something approaching objective evidence for such a claim, and again that doesn’t remotely evidence a deity, let alone one specific version of one specific deity.
You’re putting you wheezy old pony behind your cart here I am afraid. demonstrate, you have not offered any objective evidence the universe required a cause, or that a deity is even possible?
I see an unevidenced claim, nothing else.
You seem to just string unevidenced assertions together? You need to objectively demonstrate that:
- A deity is possible.
- That any deity exists.
- That the universe required a cause.
- that this cause was a deity.
You’re no close now than before that post.
Indeed, and again I am wondering why, since he claimed to have objectively verifiable evidence?
I want to dwell a little on the subject of time…
We have to attend to the analogies here. When we talk about a point, we primarily have something geometric in mind. Then by analogy, we can extend it to time: an instant is to a time-line what a point is to a geometric line. Now, ordinarily a point in time is “in the middle” of the timeline, with a before and an after. But just as lines have end points, so can a timeline. While most instants are two sided limits, with a before and an after, a “first instant” would only really be a one sided limit. This is at least conceptually coherent and possible, and it is legitimate to use the words “first moment” provided we understand what we mean, as I explained before:
As a side note, while dictionaries are useful to get an idea about common usage of words, they are not the ultimate semantic authority. Even less are dictionaries sources of wisdom about the nature of things.
I missed where you demonstrated this to be possible? Again:
You need to objectively demonstrate that:
- A deity is possible.
- That any deity exists.
- That the universe required a cause.
- that this cause was a deity.
You’re no close now than before that post.
Indeed not, though since no one has remotely claimed otherwise, one wonders why you bring it up?
You seem to be string straw men together now?
Is this objectively verifiable evidence coming any time soon? If not maybe you could offer your complete version of a first cause argument as concisely as is possible, and we can all take a look? Don’t forget to explain which deity you think exists and why.
I twice provided an argument based on the way that we understand time and points in time.
Depending on what you mean by complete that might not be possible.
I’ve opted to start with a model argument first, to discuss the form of the argument separately first for a while.
We? The arguments made assumptions you can’t support, since we don’t know what was and was not possible prior to the big bang, these are unsupported hypotheticals at best. Given the context is the largest of all possible claims, demonstrating possibility in your initial premises will need to do a lot more then use semantic speculations in this way. We could posit just about anything if we set the bar for credulity this low.
Outside of the temporal physical universe we don’t know if words like beginning can have any meaning at all. Again this is to be expected as we are talking about concepts that are outside of our current limits of understanding.
As I explained many posts back, even were one able to demonstrate the universe began, and needed a cause this gets you no closer to any deity than it does to Harry Potter doing it. The problem is ubiquitous in religious apologetics, as they generally start with the belief then bend arguments and fact to it, rather than bending all beliefs to the facts and objective evidence.
What I was trying to say is that even if there isn’t time outside of the physical universe we can speak about a beginning of the universe, as long as we know what we mean (cf. one-sided limit discussion.) I wasn’t arguing about whether the Big Bang was the beginning of time or even that the universe has a beginning. Am I missing something?