A simple challenge for atheists

[Esquilax]

Isn't the goal of a logical argument to prove a conclusion?

Ideally, but there's so many elements of Kalam that make it clear that, in this case, the argument was made so that it could get to this conclusion, rather than so it could get to a true conclusion. It's not so much that Kalam has a conclusion that's the problem, but that it's so very obvious that nobody sat down and asked themselves how to best formulate an argument that reflects reality at its conception, but rather sat down and asked themselves how they can reach the conclusion that god exists.

For example, I mentioned how irritating I found the "begins to exist" language earlier, but did you know that it wasn't in the initial version of the argument? Originally it was just "everything has a cause." The "begins to exist" part was added in after people quite rightly responded that if everything has a cause, so should god. It's this kind of thoughtless, instant goalpost shifting that tips Kalam's hand: no new evidence was brought to light, nothing real that would prompt the change at all. No, in fact the argument was changed, a whole new category of being was asserted to exist, because somebody proved the original argument wrong. The response wasn't to discard the argument when it was proved to be wrong in its conclusions, it was to assert some new facet, equally baselessly, to retain the conclusion. It makes one certain that no matter what is said against it, some theist shyster will change some aspect of it, so that the conclusion is always "true." It's not falsifiable, because your side keeps moving the goalposts based on nothing, every time we corner the damn argument.

Is it relevant that you don't like the conclusion or can anticipate the ramifications?

Oh, that's funny, I don't recall ever expressing my personal opinion on the subject of the conclusion, whether I liked it or not. Hmm. Seems like you're doing what you theists always seem to do whenever someone presents reasons why your arguments are wrong, and are going on the attack. No, it's not that I might have good reasons for disagreeing, I just don't want there to be a god, so ha! Give me a break.

As for the ramifications, we've already established that, at best, Kalam gets you to "something created the universe." There's no ramifications in that vague sentiment that I might find remotely offensive, logically.

You demand evidence. The evidence is that:

1. To the best of our understanding, matter (including universes) does not spring into existence from absolutely nothing.
2. the universe exists.

3. The best of our knowledge is necessarily limited to within the temporal framework of a post-big bang universe, and therefore is not fully comprehensive.
4. To the best of our knowledge, we've never seen anything create anything out of absolutely nothing either.
5. Given this paucity of real information on this event, beyond theoretical frameworks, it is more honest to admit that you don't know, than to invent desperately to keep your religion relevant to the picture.

It seems the collective lot of you want to argue from incredulity first and then throw up a few objections that science will figure it out, there are actual infinities, or maybe causality does not exist before T=0.

What argument from incredulity is this?

You give no conclusive defeaters to the premises so the conclusion remains: It is more likely than not that the universe had a cause.

That is not how the burden of proof works: you don't get to just assert random ass premises and then demand they be taken as true until they're disproven. Where the hell did you learn argumentation, that you think that?

As you already know, if the universe (or multiverse) had a cause, God is a candidate.

Not until you can demonstrate that a god is even possible. Things that are impossible aren't candidates for the cause of other things. You got a ways to go before you can even get to this inane "you can't disprove it, therefore it's true," point you're trying to leap on.

[Ryantology]

If we cannot know anything, how can you rule out God?

Because it is an assertion that comes with literally no evidence and has literally zero explanatory value. If I can't rule out the specific imaginary monster you worship, I can't rule out any of the specific imaginary monsters other people worship. Or any that they don't worship. I would be bound to accept as plausible literally any explanation that can't be falsified. I couldn't rule out the idea that Super Mario created the universe with a magic mushroom because there is equal evidence that the Christian god did it.

I used 'literally' three times to emphasize the fact that creationists contribute negative value to this discussion, because the point of creationism is to invent the "correct" answers, not to discover them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course there was something before the big bang. Whatever caused the big bang.

Here again, you say "of course" and "before". I'm sorry, but this is not at all obvious or settled. It's not even clear that the concept of "before" applies, let alone that the rest of our logical system has any traction in this subject. If this is what you need to be true to feel confidence in your argument...then you're shit out of luck.

[IATIA]

1. To the best of our understanding, matter (including universes) does not spring into existence from absolutely nothing.

That is not necessarily true. The universe has been determined to be flat. The total positive energy plus the total negative energy is equal to zero (0). If all the positive energy and negative energy were to merge, there would be absolutely nothing.

[robvalue]

We don't need to rule out god. That's an argument from ignorance, again.

What is a god? Please remind me?

I was pointing out the logical conclusion of claiming we cannot know anything. You can't say we don't even know if cause and effect existed in one sentence and in the very next say that we can definitively rule out God.

For the purposes of this argument, God did not begin to exist and is someone who could create a universe out of nothing.

Where are you getting this definition from? What is it that makes you even begin to suspect that something meeting this definition could even be possible? Is it anything more than a reference to what you want to be the conclusion to an argument, carefully constructed so that the argument must lead to it? (And even then, the argument fails.)

What else can you tell me about a God? Because at the moment, it seems you know almost nothing about one, except that it has a couple of qualities which magically make it fit into the Kalam argument.

Why posit the existence of something so entirely nonsensical? Especially if you can't tell me any more about it than that.

To assume something exists, without any evidence to support it, and then claim it is credible until someone disproves it, is the classic argument from ignorance. It is entirely useless. It's an error simply because anyone can make up any manner of absurd notions, about anything at all. "The universe was created by my eyebrow!" "I have an metaphysical dragon in my garage." "I know everything there is to know, but I won't tell you any of it." These are all no more nonsensical than making up a definition of something we have no reason to think is even possible. And like God, they are unfalsifiable. You cannot prove them wrong. And when something is unfalsifiable, it is useless. So if you want someone to take a totally unsubstantiated "God" seriously, you have to also take all those other claims I just made seriously. Plus any other similar ones anyone ever makes. Would you do that?

I'm driving this point home so hard because I have noticed you using the argument from ignorance fallacy repeatedly in your posts and am hoping to get you to see your error It's an extremely common mistake among theists. If you are interested in actual truth and proper thinking, and not just finding a way to rationalize your beliefs, then hopefully you will give this some thought.

I'm not trying to put you down, I'm happy to see a bit more thought going into theist discussion than usual I don't normally even bother replying to most theists anymore, so you can consider these questions a compliment if you like

[Cheerful Charlie]

How do you know?

An infinite number of anything is mathematically impossible. Any finite quantity plus one more will always be a finite quantity.

Soon after creating man, God creates heaven and hell, where souls will spend eternity experiencing an infinite series of states of experiencing bliss or torment.

This claim its impossible for an actual infinite to exist is nonsense from WCL that his own religion seems to disprove. As for modern cosmology that implies eternal existence, well what can we say? Physicists usually know a lot of math. None of these guys seem to find this mathematical idea there can be no actual infinites to be true.

[SteveII]

The Kalam and other cosmological arguments do not prove the existence of God. They are philosophical arguments illustrating that it is not irrational to believe in the existence of a god. The philosophers that work on these things will be the first to say that they do not prove the existence of God.

You keep demanding proof. You know all the common logical arguments: cosmological, fine tuning, contingency, teleological, moral absolutes, mathematics, etc. If you add in bio-genesis, complexity of life, gaps in the fossil record, and human consciousness, you get a cumulative case that makes it entirely rational to believe in a god.

Now, some of you ask what god? Christians will say that the case for the God of the OT and his incarnation in the person of Jesus and the body of theology that goes along with that is convincing.

You say that if God existed, it would be a simple thing for him to show himself. Well, he has. The OT is full of exactly that. It culminated in God incarnate in the NT where a body of theology is presented that allows for a personal relationship with God. This personal relationship has been experienced by billions. Your demand for a personal physical miracle isn't coming, because a spiritual one is available for the asking.

I know what's coming. You will say that the OT is nonsense, that Jesus never existed, where is the proof that the Jews were in Egypt, the NT is some genius plan to pull people into an insidious system of what...peace, love, character, self-sacrifice. You will make arguments about God allowing moral and natural evil is proof there is no God. You will claim that the OT God is harsh.

The body of proof you desire does not meet your standards because of your naturalistic worldview and scientism. Reality consistent of more than you can test in a lab. There have been a million books written on Christianity alone. Do you think that people haven't asked the questions or raised the objections that you bring up? Yet, Christianity continues to grow. Why do you think that is?

[FatAndFaithless]

"Scientism".

Careful, Drich kind of has a monopoly on intellectual dishonesty around here, I doubt he'd like you encroaching on his turf.

Multiple arguments from ignorance smushed together =/= anything but arguments from ignorance. And arguments from ignorance are by definition fallacious and irrational.

[SteveII]

An infinite number of anything is mathematically impossible. Any finite quantity plus one more will always be a finite quantity.

Soon after creating man, God creates heaven and hell, where souls will spend eternity experiencing an infinite series of states of experiencing bliss or torment.

This claim its impossible for an actual infinite to exist is nonsense from WCL that his own religion seems to disprove. As for modern cosmology that implies eternal existence, well what can we say? Physicists usually know a lot of math. None of these guys seem to find this mathematical idea there can be no actual infinites to be true.

Christianity does not comment on mathematical infinities or their possibilities. Eternity does not equal infinity.

Can you show me where mathematicians believe in actual infinities?

[robvalue]

The arguments are convoluted and designed only with the goal of making something "God like" somehow possible, with an obligatory argument from ignorance at the end. All of those arguments have been thoroughly debunked.

My question again, is what makes you think a "God" is even possible, and what is a God beyond a couple of convenient characteristics?

And yes, the OT is total trash I'm afraid, and the jesus story is most likely mostly mythical. Do you believe the Quran is the word of God, that everything in it happened? If not, why not? Do you believe people who say they've been abducted by aliens? You can go talk to people like that right now.

There is no objective, testable evidence for any sort of "God", even if a definition is put forward which means anything at all. And if there was a creator, everything we know points to one that has had no interactions with our reality since the big bang.

So I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree You are seeing what you want to see, and lowering the bar of evidence required accordingly.

What is it that really makes you believe in Christianity? Because I find it very hard to believe it's due to any of these arguments.