Question 1: Kalam Cosmological Argument


I probably wont post the essay as it has my professors name in it and other identifying information. But I’m down to post some of the points!

The main point (the prompt was to ask questions and post lessons you learned) was how Christian arguments, even ones that theists perceive as good, sound different to atheists and that the arguments only sound good to theists because we are theists. Ergo will be easier to accept given that it’s a confirmation bias of our views. We need to be able to hear and understand the rebuttals of those who have differing opinions if we are to develop better arguments.

At that point you disregarded my first answer when I pointed out that the original argument was flawed and untenable (the “Kalam”)

IF the Kalam argument did logically conclude a “cause” (which it doesn’t) then that cause could indeed be anything. It does not in any way point to your god of choice. Capisce?

1 Like


Develop better arguments :face_with_monocle:. A god cannot be argued into existence.

HOWEVER various god ideas exist - this is what you are arguing…an idea.


You aren’t the first Christian to come here to work on an assignment (or something like that). You aren’t the 2nd. You aren’t the 12th.

They each posted essentically the same arugments, didn’t answer questions, and didn’t post their paper.

You however failed to do one thing that the rest did:

You didn’t lie to us about promising to post the paper (the others did). So I guess we should give you kudos for that.

YES… However, this only assumes we accept the first premise “Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.” This is a “Black Swan Fallacy.”

Imagine the universe is our house. Everything in our house is causally related. What you are doing is taking information from within our house and trying to push it into the world outside our house. What we actually ‘KNOW’ is that causality breaks down at Planck time. Spooky action is not understood. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence and we don’t know why. (The current hypothesis is that the Higgs boson, that which binds our universe, acts like mud, and slows down energy/particles giving it mass that can be observed.) Someone else can probably explain this better.

The point is; causality is a construct of this universe. It, along with space and time, is a product of Big Bang cosmology. If you could prove the universe had a cause and what that cause was, you would solve one of the largest enigmas in science today. Asserting causality does not make it so,

Accepting the idea of ‘causality’ your argument still falls flat for the reason stated in the previous posts. The fact that everything we see in this house/universe is causally related, has nothing to do with anything outside the house/universe or beyond Planck Time.

Pity, but not surprised. All identifying bits could be redacted.

The answer is “invalid argument”.

To arrive at a conclusion, each proposition must stand on it’s own, and prove something definitively. You don’t “move closer to an answer”, because you still have not cemented that proposition.

You do not move closer, you have to cross the finish line to establish a proposition.

For all of your exercise in geometry, all we can agree on is that a 2D circle viewed from above does not have corners.


@studentfinalpaper Please define “infinite regress”.

It does not really matter. Your professor is your audience, not us. Any good writer knows how to write for a specific audience. The fact that you completed the paper and you feel your professor will like it is enough. Hopefully your inquiry also took you to some places you had not considered before and you will continue asking questions in the future.

This is my cautionary tale. I have a lecture series on tame. Some famous university professor discussing arguments for the existence of god. He goes over the pro god arguments and then the con god arguments and does a good job covering most of the basic ones, After each lecture he concludes “So its a push.”

“Atheists can not prove there is not a god and the theists can not prove there is a God.”

This is a dishonest conclusion. It is dishonest for the God arguments, for faith arguments, for spirit arguments, and for nearly any assertion a theist makes concerning religious concepts. IT IS NOT A PUSH. CALLING IT EVEN IS A LIE.

THE FACT IS: Theists are the ones making the claim. Theists have the burden of proof. The theists have FAILED to meet their burden of proof. There is no “PUSH” and all things are NOT equal. The atheist position IS IN FACT the default position. It is the null hypothesis.

This is really important to remember when dealing with theist claims. (IMO) It is the theist who has the burden of proof. When that burden is not met, it is a FAILURE on the part of the theist to carry the argument.

1 Like

His professor will be quite pleased that no one went to a “yes” or “no”…

Lol :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

What are the odds that this college doesn’t have a school of mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology?

@David_Killens Thanks for your response and for answering one of the questions with a yes/no! Super helpful at moving this conversation forward so we don’t get stuck somewhere.

So here is my analysis and why the question of the triangles is SO important. You asserted the following:

Now there are many types of arguments, but for sake of efficiency we’ll work with two categories.
“Cumulative Case Arguments” and what I’ll dub “Singular Conclusive Arguments”

What it sounds like you’re saying and what others are saying on this thread, is that in order to for me to get closer to proving that the shape I would have to START with a Singular Conclusive Argument which COMPLETELY proves that the shape is a triangle. Not only that but each proposition has to FULLY prove that this object is a triangle.

Here’s the issue: This is not the only way of proving truth claims in reality. Cumulative Case Arguments are also a valid way of proving a truth claim.

This is a bedrock of how our court system works. Let’s say we wanted to prove that Jimmy and Bob were at gas station (the scene of a crime for which they were actually guilty). For Jimmy we have video of him coming into the gas station store walking up to the video so we could see his face clearly and saying “Hello my name is Jimmy and here’s my social security number.” The Lawyer would have an easy time convincing the Jury Jimmy was there. However, what if we didn’t have any clear evidence for Bob. However, we do have his fresh finger prints on multiple items on the scene, eye witnesses who identified him in a lineup and said that he was there that day, no alibis, etc. HOW WOULD YOU AS A LAWYER PROVE BOB WAS ALSO THERE. According to your logic and the logic that other’s have shown none of the arguments would be conclusive alone and therefore he should go free. HOW WOULD YOU PROVE HE WAS THERE? Would you use a cumulative case argumentation style? That’s what other lawyers would do, have done, and if they couldn’t do it would erode our justice system and that of many others around the world in cases where Singular Conclusive evidence is not available.

As I said before, this logic is not tenable and is too strict of a requirement for truth claims. This is not how we all operate in the world. We all reason with cumulative case arguments to navigate the world all the time including arenas where there are strict requirements (i.e. when doing science, history, archeology, etc.)

Here’s where I think we are all miss understanding each other. Correct me if I’m wrong. Other Theists, and even myself have used the classic 3 point Kalam which some may agree only gets us to a cause but not all the way to God. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT UNTIL NOW MY POINTS MAY NOT CONCLUSIVELY LAND SOMEONE ON THE GOD OF THE BIBLE. And for now that is not my argument. My argument is simply this it gets us one step closer. More specifically it rules out all entities/objects which have a beginning or a cause.

If I have to prove a triangle is the shape then I have to prove the following acording to the definition.

A triangle is
1. a three-sided polygon
2. that closes in a space.
3. It uses lines, line segments or rays (in any combination) to form the three sides.
4. When three sides form and meet, they create three corners.

There are 4 criterion I have to prove in order for it to be a triangle. Point 4 can be broken into more subpoints:
4a. There is at least one corner
4b. There are at least 2 corners
4c. There are at max 3 corners.

If we limit the criterion to the 4 main plus the 3 sub then we have 7 in total. If I prove one criterion (that it has a corner) I now have 6 criterion left. 6 is less than 7 therefore we are mathematically closer and logically closer to proving the shape to be a triangle.

The same is of God. if I prove but one small argument. We are indeed mathematically and logically closer.

Kind of disappointed about that. I thought we could have a fruitful discussion and not evade questions. I still think we can move in that direction.

This is where I say The Cause also has a beginning. then you could ask well what was before that, and then I say something else finite, and then you ask well what was before that, and I say something else, and you say before that, and so on and so forth.

So long as we have things that have a beginning we will have an infinite regress which leads to a logical absurdity in this context.

Open to hearing your suggestions. Please list them.

Nobody evaded questions.

That is the trait that theists seem to share. You original proposition was comprehensively debunked and even when you attempted to mis or partially quote others on the forum including me, you were politely corrected.

I consider that a VERY fruitful discussion.

1 Like

I specifically asked for a yes/no on two points. Only 2 of 5 of did that and only for one of the two points…(thanks for the 2 that did)

there have been more than several posts since my request and clarification.

Whitefire13 even stated that "no one went to a “yes” or “no”…

Therefore, my question was known and not answered which is evasion… and @Old_man_shouts_at_cl; you still haven’t answered yes or no to points 1 or 2. you’ve commented on them but didn’t answer yes/no. You have said number 2 question was flawed so perhaps there’s a pass there but what about the question on triangles? Yes or No?

You’re making a positive assertion that needs proof if you say that things can pop out of existence without a cause. So here are two questions.

What things pop into existence out of absolute nothing?
Did the universe pop out of existence out of nothing or is there an infinite past?

Sorry, didn’t even bother with your triangles. Come to that, with the same reaction to the first question.
Once your “kalam” had been debunked (AGAIN) everything else is merely froth on the receding water.

As has been pointed out the you’re not the first " student" to come here, not by a very long chalk.

You cannot logic your choice of deity into being. Just not going to happen. No amount of “perception” arguments will change that fact.
All these supposed “students” unaccountably cannot redact details of their paper to make it unidentifiable and publish their “essay”/ “Paper”/“test” here to the very people who helped them with it. Kindly, compassionate people who gave their answers willingly.

Reflect on that before complaining in future.

1 Like

Did he actually make that statement, or did you just make that up?