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]

[Replying to POI in post #149]

I'm talking about this general point. In post 147 you said that it's not arguments that move the faith-needle for you.

I stated in post 147: ("such 'philosophical arguments' will likely do nothing to move the faith-needle (towards or away) from my current agnosticism regarding the topic of 'creation".) This means: (the KCA, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, the fine-tuning argument, or the moral argument,) in which I also identified in post 147. Instead, arguments related to "answered prayer" and/or "direct revelation" might instead move the pendulum.

Such arguments could possibly move the faith-needle? Some have to do with the general concept of a claimed 'higher power', while others have to do with the claimed veracity of Christianity:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40313&start=140

viewtopic.php?t=40986&start=210

viewtopic.php?t=40622&start=280

viewtopic.php?t=41274&start=190

viewtopic.php?t=41658&start=110

viewtopic.php?t=41650

viewtopic.php?t=41330&start=400

viewtopic.php?t=41373&start=80

viewtopic.php?t=41082&start=210

viewtopic.php?t=41263&start=90

viewtopic.php?t=41260&start=90

I'll stop here. I'm not expecting you to engage any of these. The point is to represent arguments which would actually resonate with me regarding trying to persuade me of any 'higher power.'

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #142]

I think you missed my point. No distance can be physically divided by 2 because all physical objects are discrete. To divide a distance by 2 infinite is merely a mental idea. You cannot even physically do it in math because no matter how powerful of a computer you set to this task, it would never reach it. It would always and only tend toward infinite.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #151]

The video makes a philosophical argument just as much as the KCA is one.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #151]

The video makes a philosophical argument just as much as the KCA is one.

I've defined which 'philosophical arguments' would not move the faith-needle.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #142]

I think you missed my point. No distance can be physically divided by 2 because all physical objects are discrete. To divide a distance by 2 infinite is merely a mental idea. You cannot even physically do it in math because no matter how powerful of a computer you set to this task, it would never reach it. It would always and only tend toward infinite.

I must have (and still are) missing your point.

What is half of 1 meter? i.e. 1 divided by 2?

So if the distance from where you are standing until you can grab the candy bar on the table is 1 meter, how far do you have to travel to get to the candy bar? What if you decide to do something crazy and only move half the distance from your current point to the candy bar at each step and your first step in the process is 1/2 a meter? The next step 1/4 of a meter? etc. Now do you see what's happening?

[The Tanager]

I've defined which 'philosophical arguments' would not move the faith-needle.

The (philosophical) reason you seemed to offer for rejecting them earlier in this thread was that they were philosophical instead of scientific, but now you are saying you are okay with some philosophical arguments, which send to either undercut why you were against the ones you mentioned being against or presents an inconsistency. Help me reconcile your worldview here.

[POI]

I've defined which 'philosophical arguments' would not move the faith-needle.

The (philosophical) reason you seemed to offer for rejecting them earlier in this thread was that they were philosophical instead of scientific, but now you are saying you are okay with some philosophical arguments, which send to either undercut why you were against the ones you mentioned being against or presents an inconsistency. Help me reconcile your worldview here.

Please re-read post 147. I specified which 'philosophical' arguments do not resonate with me, and I later gave you arguments that do resonate with me. If you wish to challenge my personal epistemology, regarding 'god', you can engage one or some of the ones I offered. Those aren't all of them, just the first few I found. Otherwise, the KCA, and the others I mentioned in post 147, will not move the needle for me. Sorry.

[William]

The KCA premises have been shown to be presumptions in the guise of actual truth. Some prefer to cling to them as if they were truth, which - after years of observation - is clearly most often the culturally accepted Christian way to behave.

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.

[Aashi]

[William]

Indeed.