(May 11, 2016 at 8:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(May 11, 2016 at 8:08 pm)SteveII Wrote: I see your point, but do you have another name for the characteristics inferred from the KCA?

Are there any characteristics inferred from the kca, or are there merely characteristics claimed by the kca?  Characteristics of what, anyway?  

Quote:Would you prefer I called it the Uncaused Cause of the KCA? (UCKCA for short) 

I tried to give reasons why I think logic is grounded in the mind of...the UCKCA.

Did you?   You seem to be using the word reason in as novel a fashion as you use the word personal.

Oh...there ARE characteristics; fancy-looking, pretty-sounding characteristics that he has completely failed to define or explain rationally in the context of his god's nature.

It seems, to me, that Steve has beliefs that support his beliefs..not reasons.

What argument are you trying to make SteveII? Do you think there's an argument in favor of God's existence?

-Hammy

(May 11, 2016 at 8:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(May 11, 2016 at 8:08 pm)SteveII Wrote: I see your point, but do you have another name for the characteristics inferred from the KCA?

Are there any characteristics inferred from the kca, or are there merely characteristics claimed by the kca?  Characteristics of what, anyway?  

Quote:Would you prefer I called it the Uncaused Cause of the KCA? (UCKCA for short) 

I tried to give reasons why I think logic is grounded in the mind of...the UCKCA.

Did you?   You might want to reread what you wrote about that.  You seem to be using the word reason in as novel a fashion as you use the word personal.  I doubt my preferences are relevant, but I'd prefer to hear those reasons, rather than hear you claim to posess them, or claim to have attempted to communicate what you have not shown to exist in the first place.  I don't believe that these reasons exist, and you've given me no reason to think otherwise.  I'm -certain- that your beliefs exist...and I'm almost certain that you've somehow managed to confuse your beliefs with reason, or reasons.  Such as your belief that gods mind must be ordered according to some principles...as a reason that logic is grounded in the mind of a god.

If I remember correctly, you asked something about God creating constraints. If God "created" logic, he would not be bound by it. If God were not bound by logic he would be able to illogical things like pick up the rock and count to infinity...twice. Since, as I said before, illogical statements like married bachelor and round square aren't really "things" but are sets of contradictory terms, I don't think that logic was created. The more plausible foundation for logic is a reflection of the mind of God.

(May 11, 2016 at 6:42 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 11, 2016 at 11:23 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Since Steve went on about how sound it is, I decided to take another look at it:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause; (What is this based on? With the exception of virtual particles, we've never witnessed anything 'beginning to exist', it's all transformations from previous states. And virtual particles don't have a cause, just a reason).
2.The universe began to exist; Therefore: (We don't know that. The universe could have existed eternally in different states.)
3.The universe has a cause. (Fallacy of composition; the rules that apply within the universe don't necessarily apply TO the universe. That things need a cause is something we derive from the behavior of things within the universe.)

So, this syllogism is flawed at every turn. Craig follows it with this beauty, as though the previous bit had actually been proven:

1.The universe has a cause; (Not established.)
2.If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; Therefore: (That list doesn't even follow; it's  a non-sequitur; and immaterial, timeless, and spaceless is literally a description of nothing. Since the math works for a vacuum fluctuation being enough to start a universe; 'enormously powerful' doesn't seem to be justified. Changeless is a contradictory attribute for something that starts changing things. And why couldn't an impersonal cause be responsible? And why couldn't the cause be caused, an infinite chain of causality is no more implausible that a changeless being that changes things?)
3.An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful. (Just a re-statement of 2.; apparently just so it looks like it's in the proper form of an argument).

Yet Steve is mystified by why we're not impressed by this. Steve, the purpose of apologetics isn't to convince non-believers, it's to reassure believers that they're being reasonable.

1. WLC answers what this is based on for like three pages. Which specific part do you have a problem with? 
2. It could have. You would have to defend why you think a infinite regression of events is not absurd.
3. WLC addressed that objection here:

Quote:In order to understand this objection we need to understand the fallacy of composition. This is the fallacy of reasoning that because every part of a thing has a certain property, therefore the whole thing has that same property. While wholes do sometimes possess the properties of their parts (for example, a fence, every picket of which is green, is also green), this is not always the case. For example, every little part of an elephant may be light in weight, but that does not imply that the whole elephant is light in weight.

Now I have never argued that because every part of the universe has a cause, therefore the whole universe has a cause. That would be manifestly fallacious. Rather the reasons I have offered for thinking that everything that begins to exist has a cause are these:

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you've got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1) you've got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don't bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can pop into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can't be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn't have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, since there isn't anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise (1). Premise (1) is constantly verified and never falsified. It is hard to understand how any atheist committed to modern science could deny that premise (1) is more plausibly true than false in light of the evidence.[7]

Note well that the third reason is an appeal to inductive reasoning, not reasoning by composition. It's drawing an inductive inference about all the members of a class of things based on a sample of the class. Inductive reasoning undergirds all of science and is not to be confused with reasoning by composition, which is a fallacy.

So this objection is aimed at a straw man of the objector's own construction.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/obj...z48OEBrSeW

Strange...I don't see WLC using any actual scientific evidence (he only gives it a shout out) to support either his grand assertions about the natural laws of the universe, or his responses to scientifically grounded objections.

All I see here are simplistic, condescending, and childish metaphors that should insult the intelligence of any average, civilized adult: "Well, why don't bicycles just pop into existence, then?" Really, WLC?

@ Time Traveler

Setting aside my missteps with word choices earlier, what reasons to you have to think that causation presupposes the existence of time?

Causation is inherently temporal, you dolt.

(May 11, 2016 at 9:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: If I remember correctly, you asked something about God creating constraints. If God "created" logic, he would not be bound by it.

I asked you how god came to be limited by the rules it created.  By the rules of a universe it was responsible for.  I suggested that the creator of some ruleset is not necessarily bound to that ruleset, a point which -you- yourself have echoed- which is fairly well demonstrated.  -I- am not bound by any rules I create for the construction of my fields.  They have to be long rectangles...I don't.  

Quote: If God were not bound by logic he would be able to illogical things like pick up the rock and count to infinity...twice.

If god were not bound by logical imposition, it could do impossible things..this is a tautology.  What's the problem?

Quote:Since, as I said before, illogical statements like married bachelor and round square aren't really "things" but are sets of contradictory terms, I don't think that logic was created. The more plausible foundation for logic is a reflection of the mind of God.

You haven't exactly shown an aversion for contradiction in your posts.....and it's not as if it means anything with regards to the proposition at hand.  If god can do impossible things, if god, like so many others..is not limited by the ruleset it created, then those things being contradictory isn't a problem.......... You believe that god can only do possible things. Why, why must god be a rectangle, just because he's arranged his fields as such?

You are referring to the rules of this universe and what lay within it while simultaneously proposing that god is not subject to the rules of this universe or what lay within it. Explicitly, that god is apart from this universe. That what is true of things in this universe or this universe is not necessarily true of god. That god is a special case. Well, okay...I don't believe you, but why not let god be the special case you're arguing for? What makes " a reflection of the mind of god" a plausible foundation for logic when the subject itself remains un-demonstrated and...as you describe it..logically incoherent? Flesh that out for me...or is it just another line you've picked up..like the KCA?

(May 11, 2016 at 9:17 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 11, 2016 at 8:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Are there any characteristics inferred from the kca, or are there merely characteristics claimed by the kca?  Characteristics of what, anyway?  

Did you?   You might want to reread what you wrote about that.  You seem to be using the word reason in as novel a fashion as you use the word personal.  I doubt my preferences are relevant, but I'd prefer to hear those reasons, rather than hear you claim to posess them, or claim to have attempted to communicate what you have not shown to exist in the first place.  I don't believe that these reasons exist, and you've given me no reason to think otherwise.  I'm -certain- that your beliefs exist...and I'm almost certain that you've somehow managed to confuse your beliefs with reason, or reasons.  Such as your belief that gods mind must be ordered according to some principles...as a reason that logic is grounded in the mind of a god.

If I remember correctly, you asked something about God creating constraints. If God "created" logic, he would not be bound by it. If God were not bound by logic he would be able to illogical things like pick up the rock and count to infinity...twice. Since, as I said before, illogical statements like married bachelor and round square aren't really "things" but are sets of contradictory terms, I don't think that logic was created. The more plausible foundation for logic is a reflection of the mind of God.

"The mind of God" that experienced no linear thoughts in its timeless state "prior" to creation (according to his timeless timeline, of course), does not have to "think" to have knowledge, existed nowhere in non-existence because it hadn't created space "yet" (another nonsensical temporal reference), and so is, based on your description, practically indistinguishable from Absolute Nothingness.

AKA: "not real"

But, but! The KCA! [emoji849]

(May 11, 2016 at 9:20 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Strange...I don't see WLC using any actual scientific evidence (he only gives it a shout out) to support either his grand assertions about the natural laws of the universe, or his responses to scientifically grounded objections.  

All I see here are simplistic, condescending, and childish metaphors that should insult the intelligence of any average, grown adult:  "Well, why don't bicycles just pop into existence, then?"  Really, WLC?

So you think there is scientific evidence against the first premise? If is simplistic, then it should be easy to list defeaters.