[
Replying to otseng in post #4215]
What I mean is theists do not rule things out automatically based on preconceived assumptions.
Even if you were to elaborate, the statement is likely (and thus will remain) false.
Kalam cosmological argument is not flawed "because it starts with the assumption that the universe is a creation and its creator is immaterial", but the interpretation of the conclusions the premises point to is
influenced by certain theists' interpretations and conclusions (despite their denials that this is the case - is in fact what is happening).
(Not all theists believe that is the case).
The Kalam's second premise is flawed, because it is unknown that material which was used to make the universe, was itself was created. It is only shown that logically the universe couldn't have been created without material.
This is a fair observation. It highlights a potential weakness in the second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument by pointing out that the origin (if any) of the material used to create the universe is unknown, and the argument only shows that material is necessary for the universe's creation without proving the material itself was created.
(The observation underscores the uncertainty surrounding the origin of the material used in the creation of the universe and emphasizes that while the argument demonstrates the necessity of material for the universe's creation, it doesn't establish whether the material itself was created or even had an origin.)
And if things do not conform to rational argumentation and evidence, then further things can be ruled out.
But that isn't why you ruled out (3). You ruled it out because it didn't conform to what you think is "relevant" and even then, you did so without answering the questions put to you, because they were not "pertinent".
The only thing claimed is God is not materially part of this universe.
UNsupported claims are simply opinions Oliver.
If what is material is our universe, then obviously without our universe there is nothing material.
How is that
obvious when know one knows what caused the singularity event or even what that cause constitutes?
Isn't your statement a great example of how theists rule things out automatically based on preconceived assumptions?
Our universe is made of material, therefore if our universe didn't exist, then material wouldn't exist either?
This assumes that if our universe didn't exist, that NO universe would exist. It is like saying that without concrete, sand wouldn't exist.
Yet (re your beliefs) you are not arguing that if our universe didn't exist, God wouldn't exist, even that you appear to be unable to explain what even constitutes God.
So how can one with such beliefs claim that God is not material? How can one confidently claim that God is not the "sand" from which the "concrete" is made?
One cannot (with any honesty). Therefore, it is relevant to question the assertion that "without our universe, there would be no material existence" and challenge the assumption about the nature of existence and to point out the relevance of the role of preconceived beliefs in shaping perspectives on what constitutes God.
I don't know what constitutes God.
Then why say God is or isn't immaterial? Why claim God is not materially part of this universe if you don't even know what part of the whole God is?
But from our standpoint, it is not the same stuff as anything in our universe.
Whom are you referring to when you say "our"? Are you not referring to a certain type of theist, with those type of beliefs on such matters?
Clearly, you are showing with your replies, that one's "standpoint" is the same as ones preconceived assumption.
And further, it's immaterial to the debate.
Because it does not conform to one's standpoint?
But really Oliver...
...WHY is the question of what constitutes God "immaterial to the debate" when the subject of "God" is also argued to be the cause of the Universe? Isn't that a contradiction in itself?
