Question 1: Kalam Cosmological Argument

Or you could admit to being a closet or ‘peculiaris gnostic’ ie you have ‘special knowledge’ of an arcane and supernatural nature as expressed in scripture or experienced as revelation or both.

If your knowledge about things, like physics before Planck Time is peculiaris, then you can only rely on philosophy to indicate if the logic of your arguments is true. If your first statements start with unsubstantiated presumptions then you can not expect them to deliver any standard of actual rational truth.

My position on the origin and eternal nature of the universe is, I don’t know. And I really can’t bring myself to believe a popular ancient Greek thinker, a bunch of timewasting 12th century Islamic navel gazers or a dislikeable professional theist debater who oozes industrial grade academic arrogance could possibly know either.

You are most welcome to whatever fantastic beliefs about the universe and everything in it you want to entertain but, and I don’t mean to be unkind, but, your attempts to explain the physical reality of it, with particular reference to its origin, longevity and eventual fate, within the scope of your personal theology is going to be no more edifying than those of Aristotle, the Kalam fraternity or WLC.

1 Like

Unlikely in the extreme, unless you consider overweening theistic ignorance an edged weapon. .

1 Like

Now that’s very telling. Not to mention arrogant. I didn’t notice anyone getting ‘wound up’. I think people here have shown a lot more patience and civility that your posts have merited. I didn’t think you were trolling (which ‘wound up’ implies) I simply saw a common or garden variety presuppositional apologist ,with all that implies here…

Actually he said “wound” as in with a sharp instrument as if his rapier like intelligence and wit was an offensive weapon, As it is, he is merely offensive.

1 Like

Oh. Silly old me. That makes even less sense. I think this one lives in a world of its own, possibly on another planet.


Thanks for your patience. I will now engage at a limited capacity as my time is limited.

  1. Objective evidence for God.

A number of you have requested that I give an answer for objective evidence for God. I honestly think that this conversation will not be fruitful for now. Not because there isn’t evidence for His existence but rather because I’m assessing (and could be wrong) that (1) the only evidence at this point that would convince you is for me to “physically” take you before God, point to Him and say “here He is” or some variation of that and (2) the world we find ourselves in, leads us to gathering a multiplicity of facts to reason that God exists or not. And it’s to this we turn in heading (III).

But before this, so you know that I’m trying to answer you I will give you this one piece of objective evidence.

Jesus resurrected from the dead; therefore, the God of the Bible exists

I’m down to debate this point but not now as it will not be as fruitful as heading (III) will be to clear up first and so I will not engage with points discussing it.

  1. Current Objections

I haven’t had time to re-read all posts against my arguments (there are over 100 posts on this thread now) However, from what I do remember there has only been one major one I’ll need to do a little more research on and that is Planck time. From the links posted, after a brief pass, I couldn’t find anything to discredit the arguments I’ve already posted about the logical fallacy of an infinite regress. Planck time is an unimaginably small unit of time (debatable about the unimaginable part since it’s measured lol but you get the expression). However, it’s still not infinite. It’s small but it’s not infinitely small. Therefore, it still has to engage with the arguments I’ve placed here for an infinite regress. Again for now this will not be a fruitful argument to engage with for now. Lastly, if there have been times where I have repeated arguments in a way that has disregarded your comments I apologize. I will reread this thread as I have time and see where that happened. However, I usually will repeat an argument if I am not convinced that it has been logically debunked. I’m still not convinced that the KCA has been debunked by any arguments here. But again for now this is not the topic of discussion.

  1. Major Impasse and focus of discussion

We are at a major impasse, ladies and gentlemen. In this time, the movement toward arguing for (or even against) God will most likely be best based upon cumulative case argumentation. This is why I’ve stressed the analogy of triangles. The analogy may not be perfect right now, but I’m hoping you get the general gist of the analogy. I’m highlighting that we naturally and rightfully reason by way of cumulative case in many areas of life and it is a good means toward increasing our chances of getting to truth claims in both everyday life as well as the hard sciences.

If what I have mentioned does not seem reasonable, Then please answer me this in return:

What (single) objective evidence (meaning that it conclusively proves without holes or room for doubt) do you have to prove there is NOT a God.

Now for me, I don’t think you guys trying to answer this question will be fruitful. Rather, I’d rather us focus on talking about the following as this seems to be a root issue:

Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.

An infinite regress is NOT a logical fallacy; or at the very least you haven’t explained how it would be.

This is wrong. I haven’t required a quantum physicist :woman_scientist: to hold an electron in his hand. HOWEVER they provide demonstrable evidence for their claims. This is therefore “convincing” to me because they have met a high standard for evidence.

Asking someone to prove a negative, with evidence!

Sounds like something a troll or tobacco company would say.

This btw is your brain doing “selective bias”. Your admission of breezing over things that do not support your position is demonstrable evidence of this thought process at work.

:woman_shrugging:t2: It’s your brain :brain:.

Again, I dealt with this analogy as you presented - you have not established a triangle - just a corner.

Nope. Wrong. So so sadly wrong. Your proposed method would have you sending money to Nigerian Princes. Seriously :flushed:

I made no such claim, nor would I attempt to “disprove” something that has no basis in reality. YOU prove there is NO unicorns :unicorn:! It’s silly.

I remain neutral. YOU claim a god as truth. I say I am unconvinced. You need to back your claim.

Lol! And then you demand in bold an answer to your method! You are a very young naive thinker!

Interesting :thinking:. Have you ever thought about looking up “objective evidence”?

Here, little guy - “ Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence .

I’m sitting here in anticipation of what you’ve got hidden under your bed!!! Many a scientists (especially ones of the Christian faith) would love to get their hands on some!

@Whitefire13; Thanks for responding to the main part of the discussion. Since you did then I’ll respond to you (It’s not that I don’t want to engage with other comments. I’ve just already stated that those discussions will not be fruitful at this time since we have some foundational stuff to clear up first).

So you are claiming that CCA (cumulative case argumentation) is not a good means toward moving toward truth claims. But you have provided no basis upon which this conclusion was made. Please back your claim. Why is **Is Cumulative Case Argumentation not a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?

Lol - :joy: there’s that selective bias brain process at work again. No problem … just a second, I’ll need to smoke.

Usually used in law (criminal cases) … so here’s an example:

Suppose Jones is accused of murdering Smith. The prosecution might offer a whole string of arguments for Jones guilt: Jones’ lack of an alibi, Jones’ opportunity, Jones’ clear motive, fibres from Jones’ clothing otherwise inexplicably found at the crime scene, an eyewitness of Jones committing the murder, Jones’ admission of the crime to a cell mate, and so on.
The real strength of such a cumulative case is this: while any one component argument or piece of evidence for Jones’ guilt might turn out to be no good, what remains can still be more than sufficient to convict him.

Do you watch Judge Judy? Your use of Cumulative Argument wouldn’t make it pass “heresay” when it comes to the Jesus resurrection “case”. As for the other “case” - god did it” - you, as a prosecutor state your case:

HOWEVER Defense has shown there are a multitude of equal “suspects” that could be just as guilty as the “Defendant”. Thereby raising “reasonable doubt” - and dismissing your “case”.

Fuck - that was easy… I said smoke :smoking: AND :boom: it came to me!

Edited to add cause I’m at my third post in a row:

Now, specifically.

Princes exist.
Nigeria exists.
Taxes and fees exist.
Bank accounts exist.
Stories of “helping others and getting a reward” exist.
A letter asking for help from a Nigerian Prince to pay a fee/legal cost to release his wealth and rewarding you with a high percentage is perfectly “reasonable” by this method.

Flowery metaphors that imply that objects have attributes that they clearly do not have; is great for literature, poetry, speeches, etc. But appealing to these fantasy attributes is ruinous for logic. This seems to be a re-occurring problem in your arguments.

Thanks for your reply here @Whitefire13!

However, there isn’t anything here answering my question. My question wasn’t
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for the existence of God?

Rather it was:
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation not a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?

Please answer Yes/No and then explain why as this will be most clear.
I need proof as to why you believe CCA is inadequate in establishing weight for truth claims since you posted in response to CCA:

No! :woozy_face: :woozy_face:

1 Like

Thanks for your thoughts. But I still don’t see here an answer to the question.
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation not a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?

Great! Thanks for answering with a Yes or No! I really respect that! Now… what is your evidence that proves that what you’re saying is correct?