(May 12, 2016 at 7:14 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(May 12, 2016 at 12:32 am)wiploc Wrote: Quantum mechanics.  The weight of scientific opinion is that very tiny things are uncaused. 

If you are going to ignore science on this point, you shouldn't invoke it on other points.

Why?

Well, that's a dumb question.

(May 12, 2016 at 7:09 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 11, 2016 at 9:37 pm)SteveII Wrote: So you think there is scientific evidence against the first premise? If is simplistic, then it should be easy to list defeaters.

(May 11, 2016 at 9:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There doesn't -have- to be evidence against -any- premise.  That's not how this works.  FFS.  You've just pulled the "prove me wrong" card.

First, It was LadyForCamus that objected that WLC did not respond to the scientific objections. I was wondering what they were. Second, the way this works is you listen to the premise and the support of the premise and offer defeaters (either undercutting or opposing). 

The KCA is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." Wikipedia

Therefore, and this is the point so many of you are missing, it is not enough to answer "you didn't prove it!!!" 

The first premise was presented in the link as:

1'. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.

Let me give three reasons in support of premiss (1'):

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from 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 come 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, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...z48RDdCeQH

Addendum:

"Something cannot come from nothing" suggests that there even IS such a thing as "nothing." Another assertion you'd need to provide evidence for, before you even get to your aforementioned premise. Your excluding other possibilities, which I'm pretty sure is a logical fallacy, eh?

(May 12, 2016 at 7:14 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 12, 2016 at 12:19 am)wiploc Wrote: You said there is no such thing as an actual infinite of anything.  That makes your god either (a) finite or (b) not actual.

"of anything" = things. An actual infinite refers to a quantity.

So, god's knowledge of all events in the infinite future is not an "actual infinite"?

SteveII Wrote:If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.

............................................................

Quote:1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from 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.

If you wish to point to this claim as support for some other claim, fine...but you'll have to remain consistent with it - and we both know you won't.  

Quote: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 come 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, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

Why are you asking questions as though someone had to answer for your lack of imagination or knowledge, lol?  Generally, when a person is supporting a premise, they offer explanations.

Quote:3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.

The science of cosmogeny is based upon methodological materialism and causal determinism, which, like the first bit of support you offered...we both know you won't be able to remain consistent with.

-In summary: It's insensible to point to authorities or authoritative statements that you will later deny the authority of: "These statements are true, except when they aren't..and my case is a case where they aren't". Fine, but why are we discussing authorities or authoritative statements that do not apply to the god you are proposing? Their truth in one case speaks to an exemption to that truth how? More confusingly...why are we discussing something and nothing at all? Where in the premise is either referenced...how could such a discussion be support of the premise -regardless of the truth of any proposition offered-?

1. Everything that began to exist, existed previously in a different form

2. The universe began to exist

Therefore:

3. The universe existed in different forms before it began to exist in its current form

*******

1.If the universe existed in different forms before it began to exist in its current form, then a race of omnipotent, formless unchanging, green, manic-depressive extraterrestrials who exist sans the universe must necessarily be responsible for universe beginning to exist in its various forms.

Therefore:

A race of omnipotent, formless unchanging, green, manic-depressive extraterrestrials exist, who exist sans the universe and are responsible for the universe beginning to exist in its various forms.


(Please provide defeaters for my premises, otherwise you MUST accept my conclusion as true.)

SteveII Wrote:

Quote:If you think the inferred qualities of uncaused cause, timeless, immaterial, personal, and powerful a presented as fiat, then either you do not understand the term or you do not understand the argument. Regardless of whether you believe the premises to be true, it is a logical argument. Simply dismissing it does nothing to make your case. The only way to defeat an argument is to show some form of logical fallacy or provide defeaters for the premises (see below). Incredulity is not a defeater.  

From wikipedia: 

In epistemology, a defeater is a belief B1 that is held to be incompatible with another belief B2, hence arguments or evidence supporting B1 can be used to refute B2.

- An undercutting defeater is B1 such that B1 does not oppose B2, but rather that the ramifications of B1, were it possible to obtain, casts doubt on the premises for B2.

- An opposing defeater is B1 such that B1 has a factual or otherwise claim that, were it to be obtained, would falsify B2.

Simply claiming it's logical doesn't make YOUR case. If you don't understand Craig's argument well enough to answer objections to it without hand waving (but it IS logical) or referring to material OUTSIDE of the argument itself (Craig spends three pages explaining why he's right on Premise 1!); maybe you need to study it more until you understand it well enough to defend it in your own words.

SteveII Wrote:

wiploc Wrote:Your god is finite, then.

That does not follow. How is God an actual infinite of something?

Maybe you need to re-read that.

SteveII Wrote:

Quote:Wait a minute. Aren't you the one that just claimed that logic and reason are constructs of humans and limited to our universe? How do these then apply to discussing God prior to the universe? 

THAT is a VERY good question.

SteveII Wrote:

wiploc Wrote:I said "finite," not "infinite."

Sorry. But how does there not being an infinite number of truths make God finite?

You say there are no actual infinites. Therefore, if God is actual, he is not infinite. If he is infinite, he is not actual.

Yes, that is a big problem. If you start saying logic doesn't apply to god, you've just thrown away all your tools. It's the ultimate argument from ignorance.

You can forget the stupid Kalam argument for a start.