(July 10, 2024 at 9:19 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 10, 2024 at 9:04 pm)brewer Wrote: Photo or execution?

Latter, not the former.

Before or after, a photo might be very enlightening. But with my luck it would be a dick pick.

Moving on..........

(July 10, 2024 at 10:09 pm)brewer Wrote:

(July 10, 2024 at 9:19 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Latter, not the former.

Before or after, a photo might be very enlightening. But with my luck it would be a dick pick.

Moving on..........

Photo requested, and provided --

(July 10, 2024 at 9:52 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(July 10, 2024 at 8:43 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Not me. I’m in enough trouble already.

Boru

A likely story...

Well, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Boru

(July 11, 2024 at 12:06 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 10, 2024 at 10:09 pm)brewer Wrote: Before or after, a photo might be very enlightening. But with my luck it would be a dick pick.

Moving on..........

Photo requested, and provided --

Wow, talk about overkill.

(July 11, 2024 at 7:13 am)brewer Wrote:

(July 11, 2024 at 12:06 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Photo requested, and provided --

Wow, talk about overkill.

There's no such thing as "Overkill"...

(July 10, 2024 at 2:44 pm)SaintPeter Wrote: Now, the Kalam is well known: (1) What begins to exist has a cause. (2) But, the Universe began to exist. (3) Thus, there exists a Cause of the Universe that existed outside time and space before the Universe came to being. (4) Next, we can deduce even further Properties of this First Cause, namely that it is (1) Almighty or Omnipotent, because only an Almighty Power can create something out of nothing, let alone whole universes out of nothing. (2) Eternal and Transcendent, i.e. existing outside time and space. And that will do for now.

Note that the properties we deduce are completely in accord with what the Lord Jehovah, the One True God, revealed to the Patriarch Abraham, the founding father of monotheism. They thus answer your second point and show we can in fact exclude various polytheistic false gods from being the True Creator God that the Kalam proves.

Kalam is a logical mess, with more fallacies than premises. Truly interesting things happen when you try to make the leap from a god to the Abrahamic god. Any honest evaluation of the evidence suggests that there's no connection. Every living creature is born into a universe where it's necessary to kill in order to live. That might fit a malevolent god but militates against any benevolent deity.

(July 11, 2024 at 7:38 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Every living creature is born into a universe where it's necessary to kill in order to live. That might fit a malevolent god but militates against any benevolent deity.

Yep. "For God so loved the world that he gave his son ..." and his cows ... and his sheep(le) ... and them chickenfooted things ... and some nice hogs, 'cept cain't everyone eat 'em ... and some broccoli, except they don't count because they're not alive once we chop 'em ..and ..

It's the old Jethro Tull lyric: "He who made kittens / put snakes in the grass".

(July 11, 2024 at 12:17 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(July 11, 2024 at 7:13 am)brewer Wrote: Wow, talk about overkill.

There's no such thing as "Overkill"...

'If at first you don't succeed, it's only attempted murder.' - Jesus of Nazareth

Boru

(July 10, 2024 at 2:51 pm)brewer Wrote:

(July 10, 2024 at 2:45 pm)SaintPeter Wrote: Saying "nobody can argue God into existence" (not that we think we do) is like saying "no one can argue the Big Bang Theory into existence".

It's not we that argue something into existence. Rather, we give reasons why a particular theory or worldview is in accordance with the Truth.

There is concrete evidence for that theory. Your argument is a false equivalence fallacy.

Your reasons are only a validation/justification for faith, an abstraction. And in case you don't understand 'truth' is subjective.

I agree it's a false equivalence fallacy, since an argument, even were it sound, need not have its conclusion supported by any objective evidence. FWIW I have yet to see an example of the KCA that was sound, since it makes unevidenced assumptions about the thing being argued for, which are begging the question fallacies. 

It uses just such an assumption about a deity creator, when it arbitrarily assumes this deity has always existed, in order to create a special pleading fallacy, to avoid the rule it created that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause". Firstly, we only know this is true for the things we currently understand, and secondly in every single instance those causes are only evidenced within the temporal condition of the physical universe, and lastly those causes are always natural. In every version of the KCA I see, this is used to create a false equivalence about the state before the big bang. 

Lastly the KCA is not an argument for a deity, it's a first cause argument, assuming the cause was a their deity of choice is pure assumption. One could substitute anything for the deity in the argument, and arbitrarily assign it the same attributes, and the argument loses nothing. Without any objective evidence to demonstrate a deity exists, or is even possible, the argument is not very compelling. 

Paradoxically, scientific theories like the big bang don't rely on subjective argument,  they must be supported by sufficient objective evidence, they must be objectively verifiable through experiment and testing, they must make real world predictions that match objective reality, and of course unlike unevidenced deities from archaic superstitions using inexplicable magic. they must be falsifiable,and have some explanatory powers. Since "God did it" is a claim, it explains nothing. 

Fine tuning is a claim, not an argument, one would need to demonstrate the universe is fine tuned, not simply assert it, the phrase is only used as a metaphor by scientists, and of course even were anyone able to demonstrate it were "fine tuned" this would not necessarily evidence any eity, again this is pure assumption. 

Similarly one would need to demonstrate that what one argues is necessary for existence, is in fact so, this would of course require sufficient objective evidence for a deity (in this case), and that a deity is even possible, then that it is the deity this person has chosen to hold a subjective belief exists outside of the human imagination. 

As another poster asserted, I don't believe you can simply argue something into existence, without demonstrating sufficient objective evidence that it exists, or that it is at least possible. 

Ipso facto, I remain disbelieving.

(July 12, 2024 at 5:50 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(July 10, 2024 at 2:51 pm)brewer Wrote: There is concrete evidence for that theory. Your argument is a false equivalence fallacy.

Your reasons are only a validation/justification for faith, an abstraction. And in case you don't understand 'truth' is subjective.

I agree it's a false equivalence fallacy, since an argument, even were it sound, need not have its conclusion supported by any objective evidence. FWIW I have yet to see an example of the KCA that was sound, since it makes unevidenced assumptions about the thing being argued for, which are begging the question fallacies. 

It uses just such an assumption about a deity creator, when it arbitrarily assumes this deity has always existed, in order to create a special pleading fallacy, to avoid the rule it created that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause". Firstly, we only know this is true for the things we currently understand, and secondly in every single instance those causes are only evidenced within the temporal condition of the physical universe, and lastly those causes are always natural. In every version of the KCA I see, this is used to create a false equivalence about the state before the big bang. 

Lastly the KCA is not an argument for a deity, it's a first cause argument, assuming the cause was a their deity of choice is pure assumption. One could substitute anything for the deity in the argument, and arbitrarily assign it the same attributes, and the argument loses nothing. Without any objective evidence to demonstrate a deity exists, or is even possible, the argument is not very compelling. 

Paradoxically, scientific theories like the big bang don't rely on subjective argument,  they must be supported by sufficient objective evidence, they must be objectively verifiable through experiment and testing, they must make real world predictions that match objective reality, and of course unlike unevidenced deities from archaic superstitions using inexplicable magic. they must be falsifiable,and have some explanatory powers. Since "God did it" is a claim, it explains nothing. 

Fine tuning is a claim, not an argument, one would need to demonstrate the universe is fine tuned, not simply assert it, the phrase is only used as a metaphor by scientists, and of course even were anyone able to demonstrate it were "fine tuned" this would not necessarily evidence any eity, again this is pure assumption. 

Similarly one would need to demonstrate that what one argues is necessary for existence, is in fact so, this would of course require sufficient objective evidence for a deity (in this case), and that a deity is even possible, then that it is the deity this person has chosen to hold a subjective belief exists outside of the human imagination. 

As another poster asserted, I don't believe you can simply argue something into existence, without demonstrating sufficient objective evidence that it exists, or that it is at least possible. 

Ipso facto, I remain disbelieving.

To the bolded bit: Gods are certainly possible, but simply because a thing is possible doesn’t mean we must necessarily take that possibility seriously.

Good post, btw.

Boru