The Kalam Cosmological argument.

[Jackalope]

BTW I don't identify as atheist; I'm non-religious.

Ok, then I'll call you non-religious rather than Atheist now that you told me.

But whether you identify as Atheist, or Non-Religious, or a Non-Man, or a "Birthing Person", or whatever else Liberal Atheist Godless Woke Rubbish they're coming up these days is irrelevant to the ULTIMATE QUESTION: WILL YOU GET INTO HEAVEN AND ENJOY ETERNAL HAPPINESS WITH CHRIST OR NOT?

We hope you will, and therefore we are telling you the Truth we know for sure. Yes, Virginia, there is a God, His Name is Jesus, there is a Heaven etc.

Wake up already, from the trance your Atheist Apostate Masters like that Evil Wretch Karl Marx want you to live under. There is a God, Marx was wrong.

Oh, do fuck off.

[no one]

Prove your god. Without the aid of your stupid book.

[brewer]

Ok, then I'll call you non-religious rather than Atheist now that you told me.

But whether you identify as Atheist, or Non-Religious, or a Non-Man, or a "Birthing Person", or whatever else Liberal Atheist Godless Woke Rubbish they're coming up these days is irrelevant to the ULTIMATE QUESTION: WILL YOU GET INTO HEAVEN AND ENJOY ETERNAL HAPPINESS WITH CHRIST OR NOT?

We hope you will, and therefore we are telling you the Truth we know for sure. Yes, Virginia, there is a God, His Name is Jesus, there is a Heaven etc.

Wake up already, from the trance your Atheist Apostate Masters like that Evil Wretch Karl Marx want you to live under. There is a God, Marx was wrong.

If this is the best you've got you've failed as a christian troll. NO HEAVEN FOR YOU!!!

[no one]

Heaven, is make believe. When you die, you are dead. That is the end of the story.

[JJoseph]

Nope, that was just a bit of HEARTFELT PASSION. It's like someone soon going to face an Examination, but not preparing properly for it. That's what I was trying to do there, to wake you up so that you'll be ready for Eternity, into which you may pass at any moment. You want Pure Logic, let's get back to the OP.

Since Angrboda quoted Hume:

If we see a house,… we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect (Hume, Dialogues, Part II).

No, I will not argue that, Mr. Hume. But the very purpose of an analogy is that not everything is identical between the analogy and the actuality. In many ways, the Universe demonstrates or displays signs of Intelligent Design - of which, updated for Modern Science, we would use DNA - see Dr. Meyer and Signature in the Cell on that, and Fine-Tuning, see Roger Penrose, and Sir Martin Rees on that - hence it is reasonable to infer our Universe is the product of Intelligent Design, i.e. of an Intelligent Designer who loves us and who, humanly speaking, went through great difficulties to ensure our existence/survival.

Since the analogy fails, Hume argues that we would need to have experience with the creation of material worlds in order to justify any a posteriori claims about the causes of any particular material world; since we obviously lack such experience, we lack adequate justification for the claim that the material universe has an intelligent cause.

It's very likely Scientific Advances including Fine Tuning and the possibility of theorizing about different possible worlds with different configurations of the physical constants has either rendered Hume's objection obsolete, or to say it differently, it's now possible to do what Hume said wasn't possible in his time.

As for the Kalam, it has many problems which have been noted by many.  Only those with a predetermined conclusion in mind take it all that seriously.  And as noted, it only would prove that the universe had a cause, even if it were sound.  That the cause necessarily was God requires a leap of faith which none of us are under any obligation to take.

Not at all. All it needs to prove is that the Conclusion that there was a Cause or Creator of the Universe is at least more probable than the idea that there wasn't. In other words, if the Kalam was successful in showing it is at least 60% more probable there was a Creator than 40% that there wasn't, it has succeeded. That's why Dr. Craig's Five Pronged approach, adapting and modifying St. Thomas a bit, is so sound. Five Independent Arguments making the conclusion more and more certain, thus taking care of one of Hume's objections above too, just like 5 ways of proving Pythagoras Theorem would strengthen our certainty in that conclusion. Would it not?

That should take care of all the objections, else if I see any others, I will address them in the next post.

[no one]

This shit does not do anything, asshole. Your stupid fucking god is make believe.

I am still waiting on that proof. Show me that a god exists, then prove it is the stupid god your asinine ass worships.

[JJoseph]

Hi all. I'm curious if any of you can refute the Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence


Step 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

E.g. Houses, Trees, Planets etc begin to exist and have a cause. So does the Universe, which brings us to Step 2.

Step 2: The Universe began to exist. 

This step is also proven by mathematical logic, has empirical confirmation in the Big Bang Theory etc.

Step 3: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

The conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. Dr. Craig occasionally goes for a further step.

Step 4: Therefore, an Eternal Creator of the Universe exists, that brought the Universe into existence from nothing.

This sounds very much like the traditional Creator God of classical Judeo-Christian Revelation? Any thoughts on the subject?

Regards,
Joseph.

1. Virtual particles apparently begin to exist without a cause.
2. Causality is inferred from observing events in the universe, it's a fallacy of composition to assume that causality applies to the universe itself. Also, the universe may have existed eternally in some form, with the Big Bang marking a transformation, not a true beginning.
3. Due to the weakness of 1. and 2., 3 is an unjustifed conclusion.
4. If the universe has a cause, it doesn't follow from the previous steps that this cause is eternal or a person. It could be an uncaused event that triggered the formation of the universe, as in the vaccuum fluctuation hypothesis popularized by Victor Stenger.

I do think you may have a point that quantum foam has some of the attributes ascribed to God: timeless, creative, powerful, containing all information. Eternal even, since quantum foam can't not exist. Sadly, quantum foam remains hypothetical for now since we lack the means to test it.

On 1: "A virtual particle is a theoretical transient particle that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle, which allows the virtual particles to spontaneously emerge from vacuum at short time and space ranges." Wiki.

This is hardly an example of Creatio ex nihilo. Not to mention the vacuum is not an example of an absolute nothing. Among many other issues.

The key issue, Mister Agenda, here is this. If absolutel nothing ever existed, then even now absolute nothing would exist, because out of nothing, nothing comes. Therefore, it is not true that absolute nothing ever existed. But a Permanent Something, distinct from the Universe, always did.

On 2: Not at all. Causality is a Logical Proposition that is necessarily true independent of any visible observation. It is true that, moment on moment, we receive virtually innumerable confirmations of the Causality Principle. The words you're reading are an effect caused by me typing. Etc. Yet that is not the reason owing to which causality is inferred, and thus the counterargument fails.
On 4: The Cause is Eternal because it preceded the beginning of time.
The Cause is Personal because it produced a temporal effect from Eternity.

Dr. Craig has developed some of these arguments in depth. So have other Philosophers/Scientists etc interested in the God Question. God Bless.

[JJoseph]

This shit does not do anything, asshole. Your stupid fucking god is make believe.

I am still waiting on that proof. Show me that a god exists, then prove it is the stupid god your asinine ass worships.

Foul Mouthed Fool, your Atheism is the make believe Proposition. You can keep believing the Universe created itself out of nothing if you want.

Strange that only universes have that property, of beginning to exist because of absolutely nothing. Why not horses, houses and everything else? Lol.

I am trying to help you go to Heaven, but you insist on wanting to go to Hell. What more can then be done for you? Absolutely nothing.

[zebo-the-fat]

Please provide some evidence that heaven and hell exist

[no one]

Where is your proof of the bullshit you continually post?

Why don't you worship Enki? Zeus? Vushu?