Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[pocaracas]

I'm sorry, but almost everything here is absolute garbage so far as refuting the first-cause argument.

shhhhh.... don't worry... the first-cause argument is garbage, too!

[abentwookie]

I'm sorry, but almost everything here is absolute garbage so far as refuting the first-cause argument.

Argh... Okay, I didn't want to get into this discussion but I will make a brief post. I haven't really bothered to read through the previous posts about Kalam so I don't know if anyone has already addressed these issues.

If the argument is that everything that exists has to have a cause and the theist insists that the cause is God, this is how I would respond.

#1. For the sake of brevity, I will just accept the claim that "everything must have a cause" and avoid going down that path entirely.

#2. I will also accept the claim that the universe has a cause. However, if everything MUST have a cause, then what created God? What created the entity that created God? You get the idea. This creates an infinite regress and the only option the theist has is to claim that God didn't need a cause, which completely invalidates his entire argument. You can't claim that everything must have a cause and then say, "Oh wait, everything except...." That is special pleading. Kalam is based on a fundamentally flawed idea and is not a sound logical argument.

[Exian]

GH

You're wasting your time with these chumps. Lets cut to the chase- talk to Minimalist and be done with it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm sorry, but almost everything here is absolute garbage so far as refuting the first-cause argument.

Absolutely correct. They just keep knocking down straw men. When someone points to the error of their ways (trying to translate the Scholastic tradition into the language of modern analytic philosophy), they just prop the straw men back up and start over.

[SteelCurtain]

I'm sorry, but almost everything here is absolute garbage so far as refuting the first-cause argument.

Absolutely correct. They just keep knocking down straw men. When someone points to the error of their ways (trying to translate the Scholastic tradition into the language of modern analytic philosophy), they just prop the straw men back up and start over.

Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion other than nuh-uh? Which are the strawmen that you are speaking of? Would you please elaborate on why you think the arguments thus far are garbage? What, exactly, is the error of our ways?

A little hint about discussion forums, it's hard to carry on the discussion of all you have to say is "you're wrong."

[GriffinHunter]

Delicate & Mezmo: Would either of you be willing to elaborate on your position, and why you disagree with the majority of the members posting in this thread? It's not very convincing when you make simplistic one-line claims that are unsubstantiated by well-reasoned arguments. (unlike the rational case presented by those deconstructing the Kalam argument)

[Mudhammam]

Absolutely correct. They just keep knocking down straw men. When someone points to the error of their ways (trying to translate the Scholastic tradition into the language of modern analytic philosophy), they just prop the straw men back up and start over.

That you find the Scholastic tradition illuminating or helpful is your problem, not ours.

[dyresand]

I am 18 years old, raised as a Christian, and now beginning to ask questions and really figure out what I believe for myself. At the moment, I'm coming from basically a Christian perspective, but I am open to being convinced otherwise and looking to discuss the issues with someone.

To be honest, I'm a bit intimidated by the environment of the forum here. My fear is that if I try to have a serious, full-scale, in-depth discussion in this medium, I'll quickly be overwhelmed and bombarded. I don't want to be unable to reply adequately simply because of the quantity of messages by people disagreeing with me. I'd rather be able to discuss fairly back-and-forth, without being terrifically outnumbered. (which would make it impractical to adequately respond to everyone)

To that end, I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in starting a 1-on-1 correspondence with me? (hopefully it is not too out of place to request that) I'm looking for someone who is willing to be reasonable and civil, and help talk through the questions and issues I'm wondering about.

Looking forward to hearing from you guys!

Well i am only a bit older than you but i pretty much even before the age of 18 i was an atheist. So what really turned me atheist is i wanted to learn about the world and between the bible and actual information i choose fact over faith and even reading the bible made me realize a lot of things. On a scale for atheism i am a pretty damn strong one. At this point pretty much if there is a god which in my world view is highly unlikely for me to actually think about. It would be a god that just came along just to watch everything when the universe came into existence by natural means and pretty much doesn't care about us or anyone. Because lets be honest there is other life out there we just haven't found it and or they just do not care or even its probably not sentient.

[Aractus]

Delicate & Mezmo: Would either of you be willing to elaborate on your position, and why you disagree with the majority of the members posting in this thread? It's not very convincing when you make simplistic one-line claims that are unsubstantiated by well-reasoned arguments. (unlike the rational case presented by those deconstructing the Kalam argument)

Pfft, I don't know why you're trying to engage them. They obviously have no idea between the two of them.

[Lemonvariable72]

Ok right, so Min has evidence when he claims that Jesus was a myth does he?

Proving beyond a doubt that Jesus was a myth is a nearly impossible thing to do because like all things with history, you can't really prove what happened but rather your goal is to determine what most likely happened.
I personally think that it more likely that Jesus was a real man in the 1st century that developed a small following that later mythizied his character. The reason I think this is because of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke. Both seem to have these badly cobbled stories that are placing his birth in bethelehem and his life in Nazareth. If the story was wholly made up then why would they not simple place his whole early life in bethelehem?

---

I'm sorry, but almost everything here is absolute garbage so far as refuting the first-cause argument.

Absolutely correct. They just keep knocking down straw men. When someone points to the error of their ways (trying to translate the Scholastic tradition into the language of modern analytic philosophy), they just prop the straw men back up and start over.

I call sock puppet.