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?

[The Tanager]

Sure, but I take no position on the KCA. I feel we do not have enough discovery to make a conclusion. I see deists/theists as eager beavers to make a conclusion for P2 when 'science' is still duking it out.

And it seems that the reason you dont think we have enough is because science is what gives us truth, which Ive addressed and you havent countered; you just keep asserting that science hasnt given us an answer, so we dont have an answer.

Alternatively, do you find my position unreasonable, in remaining agnostic? Is the KCA the be-all-end-all argument to assert the position for an 'immaterial being'? If this is all you have, then we will likely get nowhere....

Yes, your position is completely unreasonable because you arent even addressing my critique of the reason you are an agnostic. Thats unreasonable. You make a thread to analyze the KCA and invite me into it to do so and then you wont actually analyze it or why it is even worth analyzing. Thats unreasonable. You are remaining agnostic by sticking your head in the sand. Thats unreasonable.

[POI]

And it seems that the reason you dont think we have enough is because science is what gives us truth

Not all truth, no.... But w/o 'science', in determining the state of the 'universe', don't you think 'science' might be the best tool for the job here?

Yes, your position is completely unreasonable because you arent even addressing my critique of the reason you are an agnostic. Thats unreasonable.

I have no counter argument, that's why. I'm agnostic here....

You make a thread to analyze the KCA and invite me into it to do so and then you wont actually analyze it or why it is even worth analyzing. Thats unreasonable. You are remaining agnostic by sticking your head in the sand. Thats unreasonable.

Pardon me for not offering more backstory... I was begged to create this thread. If you read the OP, you will see I did not plant my flag upon a side. And I moved your argument over here, so all can engage, not just me. I simply wanted to keep the KCA out of the other thread, as it deserves its own thread.

[The Tanager]

Pardon me for not offering more backstory... I was begged to create this thread. If you read the OP, you will see I did not plant my flag upon a side. And I moved your argument over here, so all can engage, not just me. I simply wanted to keep the KCA out of the other thread, as it deserves its own thread.

Okay, but you still created this thread, asked for evidence, and said you were up for changing your mind if good reason was given.

And it seems that the reason you dont think we have enough is because science is what gives us truth

Not all truth, no.... But w/o 'science', in determining the state of the 'universe', don't you think 'science' might be the best tool for the job here?

No, I don't. For the same reason I don't think mathematics is the best tool to tell us whether a square circle exists. Logic is a better tool to tell us if something is definitely not true (because of logical impossibility). Science cannot tell us what is definitely not in this way. Something being logically impossible (which gives us 100% certainty) is a better tool to reject such a thing than science could do (which is always less than 100% certainty).

Yes, your position is completely unreasonable because you arent even addressing my critique of the reason you are an agnostic. Thats unreasonable.

I have no counter argument, that's why. I'm agnostic here....

That's an irrational reason to be agnostic. If you have no counter argument, then you should accept the argument offered. You shouldn't tell Christians they should be agnostic if they can't counter the arguments against the historicity of the Exodus or Resurrection.

[POI]

Okay, but you still created this thread, asked for evidence, and said you were up for changing your mind if good reason was given.

I've changed my mind a few times on this topic. And I might change it again. I think this is because we have a long ways to go here...

No, I don't. For the same reason I don't think mathematics is the best tool to tell us whether a square circle exists. Logic is a better tool to tell us if something is definitely not true (because of logical impossibility). Science cannot tell us what is definitely not in this way. Something being logically impossible (which gives us 100% certainty) is a better tool to reject such a thing than science could do (which is always less than 100% certainty).

I guess we have to disagree here... Logic gets defied in 'science' with other topics which have been "demonstrated". I do not think we will figure out the state of the 'universe' by simply applying "armchair philosophy". But hey...

That's an irrational reason to be agnostic. If you have no counter argument, then you should accept the argument offered. You shouldn't tell Christians they should be agnostic if they can't counter the arguments against the historicity of the Exodus or Resurrection.

I disagree. I do not accept the countless claims for all sorts of stuff, and I have no logical counter(s), and yet, I still remain agnostic regarding some claims.

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

Getting back to the meat-and=potatoes here... Is the KCA the 'demonstration' for the claim for 'immaterial beings'?

[The Tanager]

I guess we have to disagree here... Logic gets defied in 'science' with other topics which have been "demonstrated".

What examples are you thinking of?

I do not think we will figure out the state of the 'universe' by simply applying "armchair philosophy". But hey...

Please define "armchair philosophy", why such a thing is bad, and why you think I'm doing it.

I disagree. I do not accept the countless claims for all sorts of stuff, and I have no logical counter(s), and yet, I still remain agnostic regarding some claims.

I didnt say you dont do that, I said doing that is irrational.

Getting back to the meat-and=potatoes here... Is the KCA the 'demonstration' for the claim for 'immaterial beings'?

Yet you wont define "demonstration" and when I define it and offer arguments for the answer to the above question being yes, your only defense is a philosophical claim that science is the only way we could know this (while thinking you aren't doing philosophy). Then, as I've critiqued that, you admit you have no defense for your, but that you are rational to remain agnostic. This isn't getting back to the meat and potatoes.

[POI]

I guess we have to disagree here... Logic gets defied in 'science' with other topics which have been "demonstrated".

What examples are you thinking of?

"Time" and "gravity" come to mind....

Please define "armchair philosophy", why such a thing is bad, and why you think I'm doing it.

Logic, reasoning, etc... If we do not have enough discovery, we may be starting from a false premise? And I'm not saying it's 'bad'. In earnest, Sean Carroll explains how we still have too far to go, in regard to reaching a sound conclusion about the state of our 'universe'. Unlike arguing the aforementioned shape of the earth.

Yet you wont define "demonstration" and when I define it and offer arguments for the answer to the above question being yes, your only defense is a philosophical claim that science is the only way we could know this (while thinking you aren't doing philosophy). Then, as I've critiqued that, you admit you have no defense for your, but that you are rational to remain agnostic. This isn't getting back to the meat and potatoes.

I understand your frustration here Tanager. I honestly do not know what would convince me w/o receiving your given position first? Same goes for claims to 'ghosts', 'spirits', 'demons', 'aliens', etc... I'm simply asking you... Is (the KCA) THE argument to 'demonstrate' immaterial being(s)? Just curious? I've changed my position many times between 'deism' to atheist', to other... I believe this is because, unlike the 'evidence' relating to the shape of the earth, I do not yet feel I can plant my flag upon a position to argue... As I hear new arguments, many sound good. And then I hear or discover new ones, which oppose my prior position.

[The Tanager]

"Time" and "gravity" come to mind....

How does time and gravity defy logic?

Logic, reasoning, etc... If we do not have enough discovery, we may be starting from a false premise? And I'm not saying it's 'bad'. In earnest, Sean Carroll explains how we still have too far to go, in regard to reaching a sound conclusion about the state of our 'universe'. Unlike arguing the aforementioned shape of the earth.

But you and Carroll are also doing "armchair philosophy" (or something much worse) by simply assuming logic and reasoning away. That gives you even more of a chance to start from a false premise. Ultimately, while Im actually telling you why your premise is false; you are simply saying my premise could be false.

I understand your frustration here Tanager. I honestly do not know what would convince me w/o receiving your given position first? Same goes for claims to 'ghosts', 'spirits', 'demons', 'aliens', etc... I'm simply asking you... Is (the KCA) THE argument to 'demonstrate' immaterial being(s)? Just curious? I've changed my position many times between 'deism' to atheist', to other... I believe this is because, unlike the 'evidence' relating to the shape of the earth, I do not yet feel I can plant my flag upon a position to argue... As I hear new arguments, many sound good. And then I hear or discover new ones, which oppose my prior position.

There are other arguments, but I think this is a very good one that does "demonstrate" (as I think that term should rightly be defined). Yes, if you refuse to follow reason, you shouldnt plant your flag anywhere. If you want to be rational, you should plant your flag, tentatively, where reason leads and, if new evidence comes up, then replant it. The evidence in this case does not lead to agnosticism.

[POI]

"Time" and "gravity" come to mind....

How does time and gravity defy logic?

To me, for a quick example, time dilation seems irrational or defies logic. And yet, is still "proven". Alternatively, I find it hasty to state the 'universe' has been proven in either a) having a true beginning verses b) not.

But you and Carroll are also doing "armchair philosophy" (or something much worse) by simply assuming logic and reasoning away. That gives you even more of a chance to start from a false premise. Ultimately, while Im actually telling you why your premise is false; you are simply saying my premise could be false.

I disagree. I remain agnostic because I need more convincing evidence(s) before I plant any flag. For me, to assume a position now, in P2, is premature.

There are other arguments, but I think this is a very good one that does "demonstrate" (as I think that term should rightly be defined).

Okay, but I do not find there exists enough to pick a side. Sorry.

Yes, if you refuse to follow reason, you shouldnt plant your flag anywhere. If you want to be rational, you should plant your flag, tentatively, where reason leads and, if new evidence comes up, then replant it. The evidence in this case does not lead to agnosticism.

In this case, no. Since we do not yet appear to have enough data, it might instead ultimately be like asking Q's, such as: what is north of the North Pole?, or, what is colder than absolute zero? I remain agnostic.

Do you have any other 'evidence(s)/proofs' for immaterial beings?

[The Tanager]

To me, for a quick example, time dilation seems irrational or defies logic.

Why would it defy logic to have observers in different reference frames experiencing time passing at different rates?

Do you have any other 'evidence(s)/proofs' for immaterial beings?

They would be more of the same philosophical type, which you are just assuming away, so I dont see the point.

[William]

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?

The KCA, as traditionally presented, relies on a false order of premises that prioritizes assumptions about causality and beginnings over the observable reality of the universe itself. A logically sound version of the argument must begin with the premise "The universe exists" to ensure clarity and transparency. By doing so, it becomes clear that the KCA hinges on unstated assumptions about the nature of the universe, causality, and beginningsassumptions that demand justification before reaching any conclusions.

I define "The Universe" as the totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality.