The Kal�m Cosmological Argument

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

The Kal�m Cosmological Argument

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

The Kal�m Cosmological Argument consists of two premises and a conclusion.
  • KA. Everything that begins to exist has a cause or Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  • KB. The universe began to exist.
  • KC. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Using a series of sound and valid logical arguments, ToKnowHim, will show in turn, that both of the premises of the KCA are true. And that KC, the conclusion of the KCA, is therefore true.

The principle that for a thing or concept to be accepted, there must be:
  1. Empirical evidence for it;
  2. Repeatable tests of it; and/or
  3. A logical argument to support it.
If a thing or concept fails all three of those criteria, it means that we must be skeptical of that thing.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: McCulloch

Post #91

Post by McCulloch »

My life as well has been taken over by more pressing priorities. I await your response. However, I fear your arguments are running out of steam.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
ToKnowHim
Apprentice
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida

KCA

Post #92

Post by ToKnowHim »

I think we're left with this: Energy cannot be created or destroyed; according to our definition, energy exists. According to our definition, energy did not 'begin,' per se, but has always existed so long as time has existed -- if, indeed, time 'exists' at all.

The main crux of this final question, then, seems to be whether or not time actually 'exists,' according to our definition. It has a beginning; it may or may not have an end. If time exists, the question then becomes whether or not it has a cause.

Perhaps these questions are unanswerable at the moment. If you agree that this is so, then we'll agree that neither of us has won the debate, that we're at a standstill because of a lack of scientific evidence pointing either way: our answer becomes 'we don't know.'

What do you think?

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: KCA

Post #93

Post by McCulloch »

ToKnowHim wrote:Perhaps these questions are unanswerable at the moment. If you agree that this is so, then we'll agree that neither of us has won the debate, that we're at a standstill because of a lack of scientific evidence pointing either way: our answer becomes 'we don't know.'

What do you think?
I would agree with you except for one thing.
the Opening Post wrote:Using a series of sound and valid logical arguments, ToKnowHim, will show in turn, that both of the premises of the KCA are true. And that KC, the conclusion of the KCA, is therefore true.
The burden that you took upon yourself in this debate was to show that the Kal�m Cosmological Argument is true. You have failed in this task.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
ToKnowHim
Apprentice
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida

KCA

Post #94

Post by ToKnowHim »

I disagree; I haven't failed to show it is true; I cannot continue from this point because there's an "unknown." If I knew, and could show, that time exists as a thing, I could argue for cause; since I don't know, I can't go further.

This is not a failure of the argument, per se, but a result of my own stringent standards for the argument. I would categorize this as 'unresolved,' and perhaps, 'unresolveable.'

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: KCA

Post #95

Post by McCulloch »

ToKnowHim wrote:I disagree; I haven't failed to show it is true.
You set out with the claim and the purpose to show that Kal�m is true. You have not shown that Kal�m is true. Therefore, you have failed to achieve what you boldly claimed that you would do. The only way that the fail could be more complete would have been if it were shown that Kal�m was untrue.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
ToKnowHim
Apprentice
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida

KCA

Post #96

Post by ToKnowHim »

Perhaps I overstated and/or overreached my goal. I probably should have said, "I will TRY to prove the KCA." I lack sufficient evidence to go further. It's not that I can't prove it; I just can't go any further forward with the argument.

I don't consider that a failure. I just see it as a stepping stone toward the next argument, whatever that may be.

In the end, I will continue studying and continue trying. I don't see any other theists even giving logic a fair shot. The 'best' of the bunch is hopelessly lost; I'm endeavoring to do what they aren't.

Can I succeed? Who knows. At least I'll be trying.

Post Reply