(February 11, 2015 at 8:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(February 11, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Furthermore, WLC equivocates on the meaning of "begins to exist". Sure, things that we observe to begin to exist ex materia have a cause, but that's not the kind of existence he's talking about when he's referring to first cause, that would be ex nihilo.

Not necessarily. Its a bit ambiguous because of how he presents it, which is why I don't like his version. People start thinking about the big bang and origin of the physical universe, etc.

It's not ambiguous at all - put yourself in his shoes, according to what he believes, there is exactly one thing in the set of things that began to exist ex nihilo, and the set of things he's comparing that to are all ex materia. Not only is he equivocating, he's committing the fallacy of composition, as noted by another poster before me.

Even if we grant WLC a fair amount of latitude, the argument is wholly fallacious.

It's a shitty argument.

(February 12, 2015 at 12:26 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It's not ambiguous at all - put yourself in his shoes, according to what he believes, there is exactly one thing in the set of things that began to exist ex nihilo, and the set of things he's comparing that to are all ex materia. Not only is he equivocating, he's committing the fallacy of composition, as noted by another poster before me.

Even if we grant WLC a fair amount of latitude, the argument is wholly fallacious.

It's a shitty argument.

Also the thing is and i have said that the person with the claim using that logic has to apply it to a god and since god is not physical and no one know what he is made off there for no god.

I have some questions relating to the KCA's second premise: The universe began to exist. What definitions is he using for "universe" and "exists"? I don't know if what he's saying is intelligible or not.
Just looking at Wikipedia a few definitions of universe I get is:
"The Universe is the totality of everything that exists, has existed, and ever will exist"

"The Universe includes all of spacetime; the entire contents of outer space; all matter, energy, dark matter, and dark energy; all galaxies, stars, and planets; all humans and every living thing; all molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, photons; all physical constants, physical laws and fundamental interactions. The Universe can even be understood to encompass all of mathematics, all concepts and ideas, and all thoughts and emotions."

This next definition from Wikipedia cites a work by Craig called Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration:
"More customarily, the Universe is defined as everything that exists, from its beginning to end.[53] According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of three principles: spacetime, forms of energy, including momentum and matter, and the physical laws that relate them."

If universe is the sum of all existing things then I don't see how it means sense to an existing uncaused cause is not part of this. If the universe is spacetime I don't see how saying spacetime began to exist is intelligible.

I would be interested to hear from one single person who was converted by hearing the Kalam argument, or any of these other stupid rationalizations. Or one person whose belief hinges on these arguments.

I think they are nothing but an attempt to make believers feel more secure with some sort of psuedo-logical argument to make their faith seem less ridiculous.

(February 12, 2015 at 2:22 am)robvalue Wrote: I would be interested to hear from one single person who was converted by hearing the Kalam argument, or any of these other stupid rationalizations. Or one person whose belief hinges on these arguments.

I think they are nothing but an attempt to make believers feel more secure with some sort of psuedo-logical argument to make their faith seem less ridiculous.

Even Craig himself, for being such a proponent of Kalam, has acknowledged multiple times that he was never convinced by such arguments. He's a christian because of his self authenticating dishonest presupposition, which does of course lead one to question why he would bother making arguments at all if they didn't convince him and he thinks the way to convert someone is through magic belief juice and ignoring every piece of evidence against christianity.

At least he is honest about his dishonesty. Or something.

(February 12, 2015 at 2:22 am)robvalue Wrote: I would be interested to hear from one single person who was converted by hearing the Kalam argument, or any of these other stupid rationalizations. Or one person whose belief hinges on these arguments.

I think they are nothing but an attempt to make believers feel more secure with some sort of psuedo-logical argument to make their faith seem less ridiculous.

Exactly, these are ex post facto justifications for faith already practiced.

What's funny is that believers who shop this tripe don't understand that these efforts give evidence to the insecurity of their faith.

(February 12, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: What's funny is that believers who shop this tripe don't understand that these efforts give evidence to the insecurity of their faith.

^This^

Apologetics is the lip service believers pay to rationality. Deep down, many of them must understand how gullible, irrational, and downright stupid their beliefs make them look, and they are desperate to salvage some little bit of respectability by clinging to these arguments. It's nothing but the veneer of critical thought papered over a barbaric faith, and it fools no one but the believer.

Right, I know someone who just "doesn't like to talk about it". It's pretty clear that this means they know it's gibberish but want to cling onto it regardless. I guess they worry that if it gets analysed, they will lose it.

Perhaps an experiment would be interesting. Let's just say for the sake of this experiment that the universe was caused AND an infinite regression of events is not possible. While you may not agree that these positions are true, these positions are at least defensible. Let's see where it goes.

1. What could have caused the universe?
2. and what attributes would this thing have to have?