The Kalam Cosmological Argument

186 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
@Josh: You don;t have an

@Josh: You don;t have an argument. You have one idiotic assertion after another. You would not know a debate if it jumped up and spit in your face.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic

My apologies for interjecting within your particular chain with @Josh.

@Josh

Having read some of your other posts, as well as the ones within this particular chain.
May I ask, does it not worry you, that this is the very best that a theological world view has to offer?

Your personal ignorance of the science aside (in regards to causality and advances in science), this has been nothing more than a merry-go-round of word games and logical arguments.

There is nothing note worthy thus far, nor anything original.

Cognostic's picture
@TheBlindWatchmaker:

@TheBlindWatchmaker:
COMPLETE AGREEMENT: With the exact same assertion being made time and time and time again.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
@Cognosic

@Cognosic

Exactly, I have watched @Nyarlathotep consistently point out the folly in his first postulate.

This has never been addressed.

Nor has he had a reasonable retort for when given evidence against his claims, such as causality differs from local to fundamental level.
Furthermore, that there is objective, scientific evidence to support the premise that somethings (i.e. photons) do not necessarily have a cause, in regards to the test that was mentioned.

Cognostic's picture
@TheBlindWatchmaker: I gave

@TheBlindWatchmaker: I gave him links on the particle stuff, the breakdown of causality and more. Basically every assertion that he made was debunked by simply doing a Google Search. He is just trolling.

Sheldon's picture
@TheBlindWatchmaker

@TheBlindWatchmaker

10/10

Sometimes the really concise facts are just right there staring you in the face, and we are so busy pouring over the same old nonsense we miss them, well done.

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

"A mouse pad and a mouse are two different things - they don't exist together in the same essence."

A mouse pad would look quite lonely without it's mouse to compliment it. Without a mouse, what is a mouse pad?

Sheldon's picture
@Josh as has been pointed out

@Josh as has been pointed out, you have dishonestly changed your claim, it is quite clear a square and a triangle can exist together. Which was what you originally denied.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: Todd

@Cog Re: Todd

Ummm.. Pretty sure Todd has a shark fin on his back now. Which, to tell the truth, goes very well with the rhino horn he has recently grown. Granted, since I can't really "see" Todd, I just have to take his word for it. Why would he lie, though? Besides, all of his other imaginary friends seem to agree that it looks pretty awesome.

Cognostic's picture
@Tin: Well, like I said,

@Tin: Well, like I said, "Last known Picture." I guess the rhino horn and shark fin are from his father's side of the family.

David Killens's picture
Oh look, a crocoduck!

Oh look, a crocoduck!

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Cognostic's picture
@Fucking Leprechauns:

@Fucking Leprechauns: Screwing with mother nature again!!!

David Killens's picture
It's not hard. Just take one

It's not hard. Just take one drunk duck, glamour the gator up with some false eyelashes and lipstick, voila, love. Lots of splashing, though.

Cognostic's picture
@Josh: I gave you the

@Josh: I gave you the definition and an example. If you are too stupid to read them, the fault is yours.

Josh's picture
Yes and I used your exact

Yes and I used your exact definition to prove why contradictions cannot exist. Your example is a verbal contradiction but a person cannot be an environmentalist while forgetting to take out the recycling at the SAME TIME. Those two things cannot exist together. The person would not be an environmentalist, they would just be a person that forgets to take out the recycling. A square and a triangle cannot exist together at the same time. "Of course contradictions can be proved" Still waiting for proof that contradictions can exist...

Cognostic's picture
You just proved one.

You just proved one. Obviously they exist. WTF are you on about.

Josh's picture
So, you actually do value

So, you actually do value philosophy over empirical reality? You just used Platonic Idealism to prove that a square triangle exists in the mind. It certainly does, but will never exist in the empirical realm. You are asking me to prove a contradiction (that exists in the mind) through empirical means by asking for "proof" of the impossibility of infinite regress.

Sheldon's picture
"a person cannot be an

"a person cannot be an environmentalist while forgetting to take out the recycling at the SAME TIME. Those two things cannot exist together."

Of course they can, being concerned about the environment doesn't guaranty a person's every act will benefit the environment.

Josh "A square and a triangle cannot exist together at the same time."

That has to be one of the stupidest assertions I have ever encountered.

Josh "Still waiting for proof that contradictions can exist..."

You have offered one in your post, and ipso facto, in that claim, two examples be enough for you?

Josh's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Josh --"A square and a triangle cannot exist together at the same time."

Sheldon - "That has to be one of the stupidest assertions I have ever encountered."

Wondering whats confusing about that assertion... A square-triangle cannot exist together in the same form at the same time.

Sheldon's picture
@Josh

@Josh

I think the confusion is yours, did you perhaps mean a shape cannot simultaneously be defined as both a square and a triangle?

Your use of together, made the assertion absurd, as it is a demonstrable fact that a square and a triangle can exist together. You have also failed to address the other objections to your post, and the many objections raised against KCA.

I can only infer one reason someone doggedly pursues a flawed argument to support an a priori belief, whilst refusing to address sound objections to it.

Can you site a single example of cause and effect where objective evidence can be demonstrated for a cause other than a natural physical phenomenon, that occurs within the temporal condition of the physical universe we currently observe?

If not then you'll need to explain how the KCA is applying this inductive reasoning to create a rule then making an assertion never once observed, i.e. that the big bang had a cause....

NB please don't dishonestly use an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to reverse the burden of proof here, by pretending I've made a contrary assertion, as this has now been addressed ad nauseam.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
May I ask, is this it?

May I ask, is this it?

The existence of this all powerful, all knowing and personal God, is underpinned by the assumption that there cannot be an infinite regress?

Surely, Josh has more in his arsenal for the proof of his God, other than blind assertions that he cannot prove and that still do not imply the existence of a deity.

Josh's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Yes a square and a triangle cannot simultaneously have the same essence because their essences are different from each other (square has 4 sides, triangle has 3). It is a contradiction for them to exist with the same essence. By "together" I meant having the same essence.

My whole point is that contradictions cannot exist. Objective, empirical evidence cannot be given for a contradiction because it does not exist in the physical realm (only in the mind). Infinite regress is a contradiction in itself, meaning it cannot exist. No evidence can be given for the impossibility for an infinite regress because it is a contradiction. It is a category mistake to ask me for empirical proof for an abstract idea.

--"Can you site a single example of cause and effect where objective evidence can be demonstrated for a cause other than a natural physical phenomenon"

Every natural phenomenon we know of (seemingly) has a cause. Each one of these causes is tied to natural laws. Because of the contradiction of infinite regress, there cannot be an infinite chain of dependent beings (infinite regress of causes). If a cause tied to natural phenomena produces an infinite regress, there must be something outside of the laws of nature to actualize the existence of the first cause. Why should I believe that the universe began to exist of natural causes when nothing in the observable universe began to exist through natural causes? This argument in itself does not prove the existence of a god, but I struggle to believe nature has produced the universe when it has not proved it can produce anything else from nothing. Like Lawrence Krauss says, the laws of physics ALLOW the universe to be caused from "nothing" but he doesnt explain how and why it was created and where these laws even came from.

Sheldon's picture
Josh "Infinite regress is a

Josh "Infinite regress is a contradiction"

Yes you keep claiming this, but present no evidence, and since you're applying logic to a state before the existence of the physical natural universe, it is not just unevidenced, but irrational. You're also contradicting your claim by positing an (unevidenced) deity that has always existed. Oh I know that at the end of your list of your unevidenced assertions you will add a begging the question fallacy by making unevidenced assertions about the nature of the very thing whose existence you are arguing for.

I'll post this question again as you evaded it with woo woo word salad "Can you site a single example of cause and effect where objective evidence can be demonstrated for a cause other than a natural physical phenomenon?"

Since you're struggling, the answer is no.

Josh "there cannot be an infinite chain of dependent beings"

Yes you keep making this claim, though it's meaningless drivel, since we don't know what existed prior to the big bang, and we don't know how life originated, you're trying to insert a claim for a supernatural deity (using magic) into this gap in our knowledge, argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again.

Josh "Why should I believe that the universe began to exist of natural causes"

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy yet again, and a straw man fallacy as well, since no one claimed you should believe this. Do you accept natural phenomena are possible? Do you accept the universe exists? Now you're the one adding an unevidenced deity using unexplained magic, ever hear of Occam's razor? So yet again your argument is based on known common logical fallacies. I am content to admit we don't know what, if anything, caused the big bang.

Josh " I struggle to believe nature has produced the universe"

Argument from incredulity fallacy, and again you're simply pointing out that we don' t know what preceded the big bang. However and you keep ignoring this fact, the universe exists and natural phenomena exist, we can demonstrate objective evidence for both, you can demonstrate none for a deity, you can't even show the existence of a deity is even possible, and the claims it created anything is not just pure unevidenced assumption, it has no explanatory powers at all.

Scientific laws are human creations, they are how we explain and understand how aspects of the universe function. It makes me laugh when theists twist this using rhetoric like "laws need a law giver" or the way religious apologists arguing for an unevidenced creator never fail to use a begging the question fallacy by including the word creation in their arguments. All living things evolved, this is an objective fact, your religion's creation myth couldn't even get that remotely right. The universe we currently observe was a result of the big bang, and again this is supported by objective evidence, nothing supernatural is required for either explanation, and nothing supernatural has ever been objectively evidenced as a cause for anything.

So beyond repeating your argument that is predicated on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for your belief in a universe creating deity?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Josh - A square and a

Josh - A square and a triangle cannot exist together at the same time.

Josh - Wondering whats confusing about that assertion... A square-triangle cannot exist together in the same form at the same time.

Notice your first version of this claim is false (the version Sheldon criticized), but yet your 2nd version is true.

Notice how you tried to switch out the false version for the true version; then applied Sheldon's comments about the first version, to the 2nd version.

Dirty pool!

Josh's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

I have made this assertion time and time again so I thought Sheldon and everyone else knew what I was saying when I said "together." By together I mean essence. Apologies for the confusion.

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

"but a person cannot be an environmentalist while forgetting to take out the recycling at the SAME TIME."

What about a hippy with dementia?

xenoview's picture
@josh

@josh
Do you know how you got here? How did any of us get here?
How did your religion get here? How did your god get here?

David Killens's picture
@Josh

@Josh

"Dependent beings cannot be dependent on another thing for their existence and exist at the same time."

Tell that to my 60 year old ex co-worker who still lives in his mother's basement.

Josh's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

Who is their mother's existence dependent on? Who is her parent's existence dependent on? It's still the same problem.

xenoview's picture
@josh

@josh
We are dependent on are parents to get us here. We are dependent upon ourself to continue to exist.

edit

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.