The KCA!

[POI]

For Debate: Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument provide sound reasoning for the assertion of a 'prime mover'? If so, does it happen to say anything about what this "prime mover" could even be? If the KCA is instead not good reasoning at all, please explain why?

[SiNcE_1985]

All this huffing and puffing.... For what exactly? I already told you, long ago, IF you were actually able to demonstrate a prime mover, it would be little to no consequence, as I have already explained how there is a vast difference between deism vs theism. The KCA, at absolute best for the pro-creation-side, is able to get us to deism. Things quickly fall apart after this point. But let's see what'za got...

The KCA gets us to theism (which I include deism in there as well).

The argument for Jesus" resurrection gets us to Christian theism.

Cutting to the chase, and to move things rapidly along, let's go with what you say above. The universe was caused. Okay, by what? And what caused that? And what caused that? etc etc etc etc......................... Until you reach special pleading.... (i.e.) The "uncaused cause" (ala Aquinas and friends).

Um, no.

I've already laid out my case against infinite regress.

All you've got is some bogus charge of special pleading, which ain't even special pleading.

If infinite regress is impossible, then it logically follows that a non-infinite-regression answer must be not only possible, but necessary.

You just don't like the answer because it involves the "G" word, which is a personal problem...your problem, not mines.

Shesh, I expected more from you.

However, since no one has any wordly clue what happened prior to the BB, all you could postulate is there exists a 'universe starter'. Wee!

This is like saying "If we don't know what happened prior to the murder, we will be unable to conclude that a murder occured".

Fallacious, weak logic.

You've got nothing, as we both knew you didn't..so I don't even know why you wasted my time with this.

I came here to handle business, and you are arguing just to argue.

Give me something to work with, c'mon!!

We don't 'know' this. There instead exists models. None of them are proven. Sorry.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014P ... 20geometry.

The eternal universe theory, also known as eternal inflation, is a cosmological model that suggests the universe is infinite and has no beginning or end:

Explanation:
The theory states that the universe's inflationary phase began with a quantum fluctuation in a pre-existing region of space-time and continues forever. This expansion is exponential, so most of the universe's volume is always inflating.

Pocket universes:
As the universe inflates, it creates "pocket universes" where inflation ends. These pocket universes are expanding at the speed of light, but the space between them is expanding even faster. This means that the pocket universes will never collide or interact with each other.

Life:
While each pocket universe will eventually die, life will continue to exist eternally across the multiverse.

I already addressed those scenarios...the problem of infinite regress is independent of science, and no cosmological model is going to allow you to do something that is logically impossible, like traverse infinity.

Not to mention that none of those models have the empirical evidence that the standard big bang model has...just a whole lot of "well maybe this...or maybe that".

Just unsubstantiated conjecture and speculation.

We can consider yours too... But to state the topic is settled, would be a lie. It is either like you argue, or it is instead like arguing what is north of the North Pole and/or attempting to ask what is colder than absolute zero? Meaning, to ask what came before becomes a nonsensible question.

I'll stop here to see where we are at this point....

Yeah, just stop here.

You barely touched any of my points and pretty much wasted my time.

Again, I expected more from you.

I came here for a brass-knuckled fight, not a pillow fight.

Tsk, tsk.

Anyway, I've proven that the KCA cannot be refuted and is rebuttal proof..why? Because you can't rebuttal truth.

[POI]

The KCA gets us to theism (which I include deism in there as well). The argument for Jesus" resurrection gets us to Christian theism.

This is objectively incorrect.

Deism is a belief that a god created the universe and set the laws of nature, but is no longer actively involved in the world. Deists believe that reason and the natural world are valid sources of religious knowledge, and that revelation is not. They tend to use rational thought when considering the possibility of miracles or divine intervention. Deism originated in England in the early 17th century as a rejection of orthodox Christianity.

Theism is a belief that a god or gods are actively involved in the world, communicating with people and directly affecting the universe. Theists tend to use more magical thought processes and believe that a god directly answers prayers and intervenes in the world. Theism is a central belief in many religions, including Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

I've already laid out my case against infinite regress.

Yes, I saw it, and we may get to it, if we even need to.

All you've got is some bogus charge of special pleading, which ain't even special pleading.

More baseless huffing and puffing....

You just don't like the answer because it involves the "G" word, which is a personal problem...your problem, not mines. Shesh, I expected more from you.

LOL! I've already told you numerous times that I hope you are right. And I also told you that I would owe you a debt of gratitude. I only created this thread because you begged me. Remember that?

This is like saying "If we don't know what happened prior to the murder, we will be unable to conclude that a murder occured".

No, it is not like saying that. Anyone who is aware of how 'science' works sees the different too.

You've got nothing, as we both knew you didn't..so I don't even know why you wasted my time with this.

More baseless huffing and puffing.

I came here to handle business, and you are arguing just to argue. Give me something to work with, c'mon!!

See directly above.

none of those models have the empirical evidence that the standard big bang model has...just a whole lot of "well maybe this...or maybe that".

Your assertion here would be compelling if it was at least consistent. But we both know it is not. Theoretical science is empirical, and you reject some of it, to convenient taste.

Yeah, just stop here. You barely touched any of my points and pretty much wasted my time.

I needed to know where you were above, before I move forward. I need to know how many prior pre-assumptions you assert before we move forward...

[SiNcE_1985]

This is objectively incorrect.

Deism is a belief that a god created the universe and set the laws of nature, but is no longer actively involved in the world. Deists believe that reason and the natural world are valid sources of religious knowledge, and that revelation is not. They tend to use rational thought when considering the possibility of miracles or divine intervention. Deism originated in England in the early 17th century as a rejection of orthodox Christianity.

Theism is a belief that a god or gods are actively involved in the world, communicating with people and directly affecting the universe. Theists tend to use more magical thought processes and believe that a god directly answers prayers and intervenes in the world. Theism is a central belief in many religions, including Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

You are splitting hairs here, and the KCA is independent of your favorite Deism hypothesis, or my favorite Theistic one.

That's all irrelevant...because the only requirement, is that this casual agent meets those attribute qualifications that are needed to produce the effect.

And not only are those deistic/theistic distinctions irrelevant to the argument, but it's beginning to look like a red herring.

You've spent more time explaining that irrelevant nonsense, than you are with dealing with the actual focal points of the argument.

Yes, I saw it, and we may get to it, if we even need to.

Yet, you just gave this long, unnecessary spiel about deism, which has absolutely nothing to do with the KCA, which we did not need to get to?

Like I said, you've wasted my time.

More baseless huffing and puffing....

Yeah, about as baseless as a diatribe about deism.

LOL! I've already told you numerous times that I hope you are right. And I also told you that I would owe you a debt of gratitude. I only created this thread because you begged me. Remember that?

I begged you for an actual debate on the subject.

I did not beg you for an "I present the argument, and you ignore the main points to talk about deism" thing you have going on here.

We might as well start playing pat-a-cake, because this ain't no fight.

No, it is not like saying that. Anyone who is aware of how 'science' works sees the different too.

Opinions.

More baseless huffing and puffing.

Saying you wasted my time is not huffing and puffing..and certainly not baseless.

See directly above.

I did. I see time being wasted.

Your assertion here would be compelling if it was at least consistent. But we both know it is not. Theoretical science is empirical, and you reject some of it, to convenient taste.

No substance. Nothing to fight at.

I needed to know where you were above, before I move forward. I need to know how many prior pre-assumptions you assert before we move forward...

Anyways, the KCA is rebuttal proof.

Because you can't rebuttal truth.

[SiNcE_1985]

I'm sorry, my friend, but this is just a fallacious argument, aimed at impugning the motives of others.

Modern proponents of the KCA, like William Lane Craig, have written whole books and dozens of journal articles in peer-reviewed philosophy journals detailing philosophical arguments and scientific evidence in support of the KCA, as well as addressing objections to it. Clearly, one doesn't do that if they are hoping others won't "look too closely" at the premises.

Yeah, William Lane Craig has been advocating the KCA, for literally over 40 years.

Like, how can you even dare to make the statement that he/they are "hoping others won't look to closely at the premises", when the man has engaged in countless debates where 98% of the time, the KCA will be the first argument used in a "Does God Exist" debate?

The ignorance in such a statement, along with the countless weak, fallacious objections...is becoming too overbearing.

Thanks for weighing in on the thread.

God bless you and Merry Christmas.

[POI]

You are splitting hairs here

You continue to fail to see the massive distinction. Yes, both argue for a 'causal source'. However, if of one them argues for no human intervention, while the other one does, then you must first demonstrate that 'deism' is not the case, while theism is. And you cannot do that. Which means you do not only need to argue for Christianity after the KCA. But guess what, we are not even there either. All the KCA attempts to 'prove' is that the universe had cause. It says nothing about intentional or unintentional causation. EVEN IF you were able to get anyone on board with the universe having a 'cause', you still have lots to go, as we have insufficient findings to explore anything prior to the postulated "BB".

Like I said, you've wasted my time.

"Opinions"

I begged you for an actual debate on the subject. I did not beg you for an "I present the argument, and you ignore the main points to talk about deism" thing you have going on here. We might as well start playing pat-a-cake, because this ain't no fight.

We need to take these assertions one point at a time. It is of no use moving on to the next without confirming the assertion(s) prior. The KCA gets us nowhere near close to as far as you would want for it to be. We have the following options:

a) The universe had no cause, and the universe is eternal
b) The universe had a cause, and the cause has no direct intention
c) The universe had a cause, had intention, but no follow-up intention with humans
d) The universe had a cause, and this agency still interacts with humans to this day.

You want to skip forward to D), out of turn.

No substance. Nothing to fight at.

Pointing out your inconsistency, in regard to empirical scientific findings, has plenty of substance. It lets everyone know how your epistemology works. You would just rather avoid this observation.

[SiNcE_1985]

You continue to fail to see the massive distinction. Yes, both argue for a 'causal source'. However, if of one them argues for no human intervention, while the other one does, then you must first demonstrate that 'deism' is not the case, while theism is. And you cannot do that. Which means you do not only need to argue for Christianity after the KCA.

Whether or not God plans to intervene with creation after creation, has no bearing on whether there was a creation in the first place.

We are being diverted from what the argument actually is, to focus on what the argument actually isn't.

This a red herring..

But guess what, we are not even there either. All the KCA attempts to 'prove' is that the universe had cause. It says nothing about intentional or unintentional causation.

I never mentioned anything about deism. That was all you.

EVEN IF you were able to get anyone on board with the universe having a 'cause', you still have lots to go, as we have insufficient findings to explore anything prior to the postulated "BB".

My argument awaits your refutation.

If you've got nothing of substance to say, I'll take the W and go about my merry little way.

We need to take these assertions one point at a time. It is of no use moving on to the next without confirming the assertion(s) prior. The KCA gets us nowhere near close to as far as you would want for it to be. We have the following options:

a) The universe had no cause, and the universe is eternal
b) The universe had a cause, and the cause has no direct intention
c) The universe had a cause, had intention, but no follow-up intention with humans
d) The universe had a cause, and this agency still interacts with humans to this day.

You want to skip forward to D), out of turn.

Hmm. Still no substance.

This is like taking candy from a baby.

Pointing out your inconsistency, in regard to empirical scientific findings, has plenty of substance. It lets everyone know how your epistemology works. You would just rather avoid this observation.

Still nothing. No fight. No grit.

Long story short..

The KCA is rebuttal proof.

Because you can't rebuttal truth.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #16]

Before we proceed, I need to make things straight, since you are not picking up what is being put down. Prove the 'cause' was intentional, versus not-intentional. If it's the former, we can discuss. If it's the later, game over for you. And this is all pre-assuming that the universe actually began to exist, and is not instead eternal.

We can get to all your other mumbo-jumbo as soon as you address this first problem.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #16]

Before we proceed, I need to make things straight, since you are not picking up what is being put down. Prove the 'cause' was intentional, versus not-intentional. If it's the former, we can discuss. If it's the later, game over for you. And this is all pre-assuming that the universe actually began to exist, and is not instead eternal.

Tryna figure out how you can unintentionally create an entire universe with 10^10^123 precision.

Makes no sense.

That's like Michelangelo unintentionally painting the Sistine Chapel.

You are stalling, and it is evident.

I told you it wouldn't be enjoyable for you.

We can get to all your other mumbo-jumbo as soon as you address this first problem.

Yeah, ok.

[POI]

Tryna figure out how you can unintentionally create an entire universe with 10^10^123 precision.

Well, assuming a 'cause' actually happened, I would then ask this 'causal agency'... "Hello Mr. or Mrs. creator. Why create a universe where 99.99999% of its existence is unsuitable for human life?" Also, "why propel laws into motion in which, millions or billions of years later, allow for some human life to be able to survive in some locations on one planet, IF your objective was to focus on humans?.?.?"

Hmm? And again, this is also assuming that the universe had a cause. You get to apply special pleading in P1, why not just include naterialism too.

[SiNcE_1985]

Well, assuming a 'cause' actually happened, I would then ask this 'causal agency'... "Hello Mr. or Mrs. creator. Why create a universe where 99.99999% of its existence is unsuitable for human life?" Also, "why propel laws into motion in which, millions or billions of years later, allow for some human life to be able to survive in some locations on one planet, IF your objective was to focus on humans?.?.?"

Irrelevant questions to the KCA.

You don't need to know why it happened, to know that it happened.

The KCA focuses on that it happened, not why it happened.

Hmm? And again, this is also assuming that the universe had a cause.

Deal with the argument, please.

You get to apply special pleading in P1, why not just include naterialism too.

Are you gonna deal with the argument?

Or are we done and I can just take my W and scadaddle out of here?