Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[The Reality Salesman01]

From the Bible-Belt in a small town inTEXAS. Upbringings don't get much more Christian than that. My grandfather was a preacher, my father a deacon, and I was very much involved with the youth ministry until I changed my mind. I'm sure anybody here would be happy to have a back and forth with you, and I am no different. PM AWAY! ...and, welcome!

[watchamadoodle]

Most things that we observe existing for a time are only abstractions for organizations of other things (the Earth, a human body, a nation, etc.). The time of birth and death we assign to these abstractions depends on when certain properties of the abstraction begin to exist and cease to exist.

Sensible bodies are not themselves abstractions; but rather, the real things having an independent existence from which we abstract the qualities that allow them to be conceived in the the intellect. It is my position that even in the absence of human perception the universe is filled with real objects that have distinct qualities and essential natures.

What would be an example of a real object? I can't think of a real object except the entire universe. The objects within the universe are simply arbitrary abstractions IMO.

[Delicate]

These words come from your own post. They constitute among the most compelling arguments you've presented so far.

Considering the way you've avoided the majority of my other arguments as though you have no answer to them, I won't take this as a signifier of the actual quality of my argument.

You're clearly saying that I define God as uncreated because that's how I want to define him.

And as I have shown, that's clearly false.

And, as with all the other arguments I've made that you can't rebut, you've ignored the more present point in favor of harping on the irrelevant one. As I've said before, regardless of where the definition comes from, you still can't define your way around an argument. You've selected your definition of god from a range of them, and I don't care what reasons you had for doing so; the point is that "...by definition!" is not an argument.

Now, are you going to address the ninety percent of my arguments that you've thus far simply avoided, or not?

It's evident that you're confused since you're still harping on definitions.

But like I said, definition don't matter. Replace God with any variable, where the object represented by the variable has the property of being uncreated.

The theist now alleges to have an argument for the existence of something that has the property of being uncreated.

And your whole definition spiel has become irrelevant. If you have to argue against this you have make a metaphysical objection, not a definitional objection.

I don't know why you think you've made so many great points when they are so obviously silly and false.

If you want to make a serious objection to cosmological arguments, a much more substantial way to do it is via the metaphysics of causation.

[Esquilax]

It's evident that you're confused since you're still harping on definitions.

But like I said, definition don't matter. Replace God with any variable, where the object represented by the variable has the property of being uncreated.

The theist now alleges to have an argument for the existence of something that has the property of being uncreated.

Except that I wouldn't call that an argument, I'd call it a definition. Not a one of the theists who seem to think Kalam is so cogent and relevant has ever even approached making an argument that the category of uncreated things has anything in it at all. For all your bluster, you haven't either.

And your whole definition spiel has become irrelevant. If you have to argue against this you have make a metaphysical objection, not a definitional objection.

I don't have to make any objection at all, since the burden of proof lies with those asserting the existence of this particular category. I'm not required to prove anyone wrong before they've presented evidence that they're right, and this is kinda the big issue with Kalam.

I don't know why you think you've made so many great points when they are so obviously silly and false.

... He said, still failing to even address a single one of them.

If you want to make a serious objection to cosmological arguments, a much more substantial way to do it is via the metaphysics of causation.

I'm actually pretty happy with merely pointing out the unjustified fiat assertions that make up one hundred percent of Kalam's premises, plus the fact that the basis of the argument, within the bounds of the current science at our disposal, has no means with which to demonstrate itself at all, and is thus unfalsifiable and, hence, worthless as an indicator of reality.

Thus far, you've done little but focus on the tertiary concerns I had about the argument, all the while content to simply dismiss the meat of my argumentation as bad by fiat. It's really hard to actually address your position here when you continually fail to make your objections present, must less clear.

[Delicate]

It's evident that you're confused since you're still harping on definitions.

But like I said, definition don't matter. Replace God with any variable, where the object represented by the variable has the property of being uncreated.

The theist now alleges to have an argument for the existence of something that has the property of being uncreated.

Except that I wouldn't call that an argument, I'd call it a definition. Not a one of the theists who seem to think Kalam is so cogent and relevant has ever even approached making an argument that the category of uncreated things has anything in it at all. For all your bluster, you haven't either.

And your whole definition spiel has become irrelevant. If you have to argue against this you have make a metaphysical objection, not a definitional objection.

I don't have to make any objection at all, since the burden of proof lies with those asserting the existence of this particular category. I'm not required to prove anyone wrong before they've presented evidence that they're right, and this is kinda the big issue with Kalam.

I don't know why you think you've made so many great points when they are so obviously silly and false.

... He said, still failing to even address a single one of them.

If you want to make a serious objection to cosmological arguments, a much more substantial way to do it is via the metaphysics of causation.

I'm actually pretty happy with merely pointing out the unjustified fiat assertions that make up one hundred percent of Kalam's premises, plus the fact that the basis of the argument, within the bounds of the current science at our disposal, has no means with which to demonstrate itself at all, and is thus unfalsifiable and, hence, worthless as an indicator of reality.

Thus far, you've done little but focus on the tertiary concerns I had about the argument, all the while content to simply dismiss the meat of my argumentation as bad by fiat. It's really hard to actually address your position here when you continually fail to make your objections present, must less clear.

I predicted you would still be stuck on the definition thing, and here you are. Stuck on the definition thing.

I don't see you playing a different song on this one, buddy. I'm not going to bother.

For the rest of the readers out there, this is how you know Esquilax is wrong:
-Definitions are about the meanings of words.
-Metaphysics is about the nature of reality.

When someone says a being exists (call it x) which has the set of properties P, they are not making a claim about the meaning of words. They are making a claim about reality, namely "Reality, ie 'the total set of everything that exist,' includes as a member 'entity x with properties P.'"

This is a claim about reality. The question is, does such an entity exist or not? Does the evidence justify belief in the existence of this entity or not? What is the nature of this entity? All metaphysical questions. Don't be a broken record like our friend Esquilax here.

[pocaracas]

The question is, does such an entity exist or not?

If it does exist, then evidence of its existence should be plain for all to see...
If it was made up, then no such evidence should exist.

Does the evidence justify belief in the existence of this entity or not?

Evidence that justifies belief is a strange concept.
Does the evidence for elephants justify belief that they exist? Or does it inform you of their existence?

What is the nature of this entity?

The evidence for it should provide us with that answer...

[Mudhammam]

The question is, does such an entity exist or not? Does the evidence justify belief in the existence of this entity or not? What is the nature of this entity? All metaphysical questions. Don't be a broken record like our friend Esquilax here.

Esquilax is correct. The Kalam doesn't even pretend to argue for "such an entity" as God when everyone knows invoking the term connotes intelligence or personality. The Kalam just argues for self-sufficiency. Well, cool, by the definitions and premises employed, regardless of their actual correctness or soundness, it only stands to reason that nature is a self-sufficient system.

[FatAndFaithless]

This is bizarre. It's it's beginning to get the whiffs of an ostensibly-atheist version of HM.

[Faith No More]

I predicted you would still be stuck on the definition thing, and here you are. Stuck on the definition thing.

I don't see you playing a different song on this one, buddy. I'm not going to bother.

For the rest of the readers out there, this is how you know Esquilax is wrong:
-Definitions are about the meanings of words.
-Metaphysics is about the nature of reality.

When someone says a being exists (call it x) which has the set of properties P, they are not making a claim about the meaning of words. They are making a claim about reality, namely "Reality, ie 'the total set of everything that exist,' includes as a member 'entity x with properties P.'"

This is a claim about reality. The question is, does such an entity exist or not? Does the evidence justify belief in the existence of this entity or not? What is the nature of this entity? All metaphysical questions. Don't be a broken record like our friend Esquilax here.

define
[dih-fahyn]

verb (used with object), defined, defining.

1.to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.): They disagreed on how to define “liberal.”.

2. to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe:
to define judicial functions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define?s=t

Your bumbling pompousness makes it appear as if you're afraid to actually address the points at hand, and you've done nothing in this thread but arrogantly dismiss all relevant points with a simple hand-wave.

It's time to put up or shut up.

[FatAndFaithless]

Let's not forget this is the same guy who tried to rope us into his atheism crusade 'to save civilization' as the definition of atheism 'whether you like it or not'.