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?

[POI]

Is it instead possible that the stated P2 of the KCA is not 'common knowledge' because we do not yet have enough data? Is it instead rational to remain agnostic to this position, due to lack in actual discovery?

I've said here is the data and it is enough because of x, y, and z. If you don't address the x, y, and z but only assert that it doesn't seem like enough to you and others, then that isn't remaining agnostic for rational reasons.

I've also said that I can remain agnostic because of the alternative arguments of x, y, z. I instead do not choose a position. I remain agnostic to many topics in the same way. In the same way I still remain agnostic for other topics, I remain agnostic to the state of the claim for P2 of the KCA. Meaning, I still need more info....

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #131]

And those same assumptions for why you are an agnostic here would make you an agnostic in the other arguments for the immaterial which I would offer.

[POI]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #132]

Please notice, I took no position in the OP.

Completely off topic, but maybe this will shed some light.... I was having a discussion with my son today about whether or not the L.A. fires were an inside job, or not? I hear and read arguments on both sides. We may never really know for sure? It may, or may not, ever be 'common knowledge.'

*****************

If I thought I had a lot to contribute, or to argue for a side, I would have vigorously engaged Since_1985's thread a few years ago. Oops, I mean Venom's thread (viewtopic.php?t=38228).

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

There are reasons to reject the first two premises. While most people would not reject the first premise, you could still challenge it. For example, you might argue, as philosopher Graham Oppy does, that things can begin to exist spontaneously without a cause. This view, known as "spontaneous existence," allows one to avoid the idea of something eternal.

The second premise is easier to reject. You could argue, like Aristotle, that the universe is eternal. In his argument from change, the existence of an eternal multiverse does not matter.

However, if you are convinced of the truth of both premises, then you must accept the conclusion, as it follows logically.

As for the identity of the prime mover, I would be interested in hearing from those who believe both premises are true.

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #134]

You could argue, like Aristotle, that the universe is eternal.

One can accept the universe is eternal and still argue we exist in a created thing.

[SiNcE_1985]

If I thought I had a lot to contribute, or to argue for a side, I would have vigorously engaged Since_1985's thread a few years ago. Oops, I mean Venom's thread (viewtopic.php?t=38228).

Yeah, and in that thread..

Venni Vitti Vicci!!

then, and now.

[benchwarmer]

If I thought I had a lot to contribute, or to argue for a side, I would have vigorously engaged Since_1985's thread a few years ago. Oops, I mean Venom's thread (viewtopic.php?t=38228).

Yeah, and in that thread..

Venni Vitti Vicci!!

then, and now.

Ah yes, the thread where dividing by 2 had you stymied. That was fun.

Edited to add a link to the fun where WEV couldn't understand what an infinite series is or how to traverse one: [Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #164]

[SiNcE_1985]

If I thought I had a lot to contribute, or to argue for a side, I would have vigorously engaged Since_1985's thread a few years ago. Oops, I mean Venom's thread (viewtopic.php?t=38228).

Yeah, and in that thread..

Venni Vitti Vicci!!

then, and now.

Ah yes, the thread where dividing by 2 had you stymied. That was fun.

Nah, that don't sound like me.

Or was that in a dream you had, where you were finally able to beat me in a debate?

Actually, I don't even think your mind is capable of even dreaming such a thing.

[benchwarmer]

If I thought I had a lot to contribute, or to argue for a side, I would have vigorously engaged Since_1985's thread a few years ago. Oops, I mean Venom's thread (viewtopic.php?t=38228).

Yeah, and in that thread..

Venni Vitti Vicci!!

then, and now.

Ah yes, the thread where dividing by 2 had you stymied. That was fun.

Nah, that don't sound like me.

Or was that in a dream you had, where you were finally able to beat me in a debate?

Actually, I don't even think your mind is capable of even dreaming such a thing.

I updated my previous reply to add the link. Here it is again if you don't believe me. Either you are not the same user (which would be odd if you are claiming their 'victory' now) or you are the same person who didn't (maybe still doesn't) understand dividing by 2.

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #164]

[SiNcE_1985]

I updated my previous reply to add the link. Here it is again if you don't believe me. Either you are not the same user (which would be odd if you are claiming their 'victory' now) or you are the same person who didn't (maybe still doesn't) understand dividing by 2.

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #164]

Bruce Wayne, Batman, and the Dark Knight are all the same person.

I read it, and I fail to see what you are talking about.

I defended my points well, all of which remain unrefuted, even til this day.