Question 1: Kalam Cosmological Argument

It doesn’t get you to any deity at all, it only involves a string of assumptions that lead you to a first cause, and then a deity. The argument is demonstrably fallacious, and of course, contains no objective evidence whatsoever.

Only for those prepared to make pure assumption in their arguments, as you did.

Well there you go, pure unevidenced assumption. It is nothing more than an argument from assertion fallacy. It is also of course a begging the question fallacy.

Can you seriously not see the contradiction there? This is also a special pleading fallacy, and so it makes your argument irrational by definition.

So universes can’t be infinite, but a deity can, and all without explanation or evidence? Another special pleading fallacy, and making unevidenced inexplicable assumptions about magic, and the supernatural is not sound argument.

Since when is pure assumption remotely rational, and you have used several known logical fallacies, which I have listed here yet again. So your argument is demonstrably irrational, and not logical as you keep claiming.

1 Like

And if a god does not interact with this known universe (which some theists claim because interaction is a trail that leads to confirmation) then the god = zero, nothing.

1 Like

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl, it sounds like your logic is as follows (please correct me if I’m wrong cause I want to get this right): "StudentfinalPaper’s logic can lead to something “The Cause” but because that “Cause” could be anything (i.e. a unicorn, fairy monster, God, etc), then it is nothing and absurd because of the wide range of options/ lack of specificity and we can drop it from evaluation. Would this be a correct assessment of your Position?

@Cognostic, what are your thoughts on my most recent post (here’s the link it’s comment 34) to @Old_man_shouts_at_cl on the analogy of circles and triangles. You guys are saying something similar in that “the Kalam argument as it is and it gets you no place near the existence of a god…”. What would you say in response to my comments to him? I’m trying to loop multiple people into one comment as it’s hard to respond to all of you guys thoughtfully quickly cause you guys are smart and have great comments and I want to give them my full attention! Haven’t forgotten about this!

Let us agree this known universe had a cause. But you immediately inject a god, ignoring other possibilities. You must prove it is a god and not other explanations, thus having to prove a god FIRST.

Unfortunately, you opened three threads at the same time. I suggest next time, one thread at a time to avoid confusion.

1 Like

Well - it is imaginative pondering :thinking: and not unique to the human species.

The “cause” could HAVE BEEN a god or fairy or unicorn :unicorn: etc… :wink: AND also died when it “pushed” out of “no time/space”. This death could have “caused” our physical universe (back to the “Big Bang”) and humanity has just been examining (and is subsequently apart of) this being’s body parts.


Why do you assume the cause was an agent? It may have been a natural process.

You have a lot to prove.

These are assertions you must prove.

  1. The universe was caused by an agent
  2. There is a god.
  3. god caused the universe

Each proof must stand alone. A hint: research “circular reasoning fallacy”.

1 Like

This is a favorite line of apologists who come here, but they never offer it as anything but a postulate. At this point I think it is safe to assume that this is just opinion. Maybe you should stop referring to your postulates/opinions as logical deductions?

1 Like

@studentfinalpaper Please define “infinite regress”.

1 Like


Any chance you will at any point address any of my posts, that have pointed out how irrational &illogical your plagiarized version of the kalam cosmological argument is?

@Sheldon, yes I will! I haven’t forgotten about you! Trying to get to every post one at a time and you guys have some in depth questions =]

From reading these posts, I see we’re coming to a couple of critical points which ought be resolved. I’ll respond to other posts as I have time, but these two are crucial. For the sake of getting where everyone stands please answer yes or no to the following questions (feel free to expand as these questions are complex, but at a minimum for the sake of having a productive convo, please answer yes or no).

In my prior post (post 34 under expansion 1) I mentioned the analogy of two men trying to guess a shape to be a triangle or circle. The shape has a corner and is pointed out by triangle-claiming observer (We’ll dub TCB). Given the confines of the example, is TCB closer to proving that the 2D shape is a triangle? Yes or no? Here’s the example again in case you’re new to the thread:

It sounds like several people’s logic are as follows (please correct me if I’m wrong cause I want to get this right): "StudentfinalPaper’s logic can lead to something “The Cause” but because that “Cause” could be anything (i.e. a unicorn, fairy monster, God, etc), then it is nothing and absurd because of the wide range of options/ lack of specificity and we can drop it from evaluation. Would this be a correct assessment of your Position? Yes or no?


Is this your summary for your paper?

@Whitefire13 Paper was finished 2 days ago =D So what is your answer for 1 and 2?

Closer seems to imply a magnitude and a metric to establish it, and I don’t think you have either; making the question gibberish, IMO.

I don’t know how to say this without being mean so here goes:

As far as I can tell, you haven’t posted anything I would refer to as logical. You’ve certainly slung the word around a lot; but if I had to guess: I’d guess you’ve never constructed a logical argument in your life. Most people have not.

1 Like

I don’t suppose you could see your way clear to posting your essay here?

It’s not that I don’t rust you to have given a fair and accurate explanation of the views and explanations provided to you. I must admit to being a little suspicious though. This is because rational thinking and an open mind are not things demonstrated by pretty much any of the apologists I’ve seen here so far. I truly hope you prove to be the exception.

PS : At least please tell me your essay is for high school and not university

Deep sigh

Cosmologists can trace the universe as far back as Planck Time (ie Big Bang)

There is no “cause” (uh, with the capital C) that can be demonstrated/measured beyond Planck Time.

As far as other options:

…since a third response is possible, namely, that the reason the universe exists is that it caused itself to exist. There are at least three ways the universe can cause itself to exist, by (1) a closed, simultaneous causal loop at the first instant of time, (2) beginning with a continuum of instantaneous states in a first half-open second, with each state being caused by earlier states, and (3) being caused to exist by backward causation, where a later event causes the big bang to occur.-

Thanks for all of your answers everyone… Unfortunately it seems that everyone is evading answer yes or no to the questions asked. Could you guys respond in some variation of this format. I’m not trying to be demanding or restrictive; it’s just no one has answered yes or no yet so perhaps I wasn’t clear.

  1. Yes/No
    Expansion of your argument

  2. Yes/No
    Expansion of your argument

Yes or No: have you stopped beating your wife?