Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[Mudhammam]

the properties of the cause are similar/identical to the properties of God, particularly the Abrahamic ones.

No, they're not. They're particular to every creator deity unimaginative idiots have conjured up in their mythologizing of the past.

Like i said, don't take atheist words for anything. If Christianity is right, atheists are dishonest fools. Keep this in mind.

If Christian theology is wrong, it's the biggest waste of time and energy that humans have ever devoted themselves to. Sadly, even if Christian theology is right, it's still the biggest waste of time and energy that humans have ever devoted themselves to.

[Esquilax]

""Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause"? Since when was "cause" a synonym for "god""

Its not, the properties of the cause are similar/identical to the properties of God, particularly the Abrahamic ones.

Yes, I've seen the way you Kalam proponents proceed to front load the "cause" that Kalam asserts but doesn't demonstrate with a series of additional assertions about timelessness, spacelessness and so on, but you don't ever demonstrate those attributes either. It's not exactly impressive, to see you guys spin your original fantasy into a larger, less justified fantasy.

"You won't find many scientists willing to state that the universe began to exist"

You will find many, including explicit quotes from the worlds top cosmologists.

"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" - Vilenkin

And no, he's not speaking about merely a beginning to expansion, which Esqi injects for no reason.

Hey, I'm sorry you don't like that he's talking about universal expansion, I'm sorry that you don't understand the difference between expansion and beginning, but you yourself linked to the thread where we discussed this: Vilenkin's own paper says it was talking about a beginning to expansion, calling that it's "chief result." Once again, your baseless dismissals and selective desire to take science seriously are not arguments.

Scientists also realise that you cannot have an eternally balanced singularity which suddenly, at one point, decides to explode. If it were eternally balanced, as it would have to be, it is never going to explode, so cannot be past-eternal.

And the fact that you decide to defend your fiat dismissals with a strawman doesn't help your case.

"the second premise of Kalam is dead wrong, and the argument dies with it."

- He hasn't even began to show this. "Isn't necessarily true", does not equal "is dead wrong".

But you would need evidence to demonstrate that it's true... which Kalam, you, Delicate, anyone even remotely inclined to take Kalam seriously, never provides.

Everything that begins to exist having a cause, seems most reasonable.

Sure, within our current causal framework that exists within the universe. Oh, but the universe didn't exist prior to the beginning of the universe, meaning that that causal framework didn't exist either...

It's a fallacy of composition, is what you're doing here. Things that are true for components of a thing are not necessarily true of the whole of the thing.

We aren't arguing certainties here, only probabilities, the theists believes that things which begin to exist have a cause,

But you believe that god exists without a cause, which puts the lie to this entire line of argument you're using. No matter how you wish to spin it, you believe in the existence of something that doesn't require a cause, so you can hardly turn around and call it illogical for someone else to entertain the possibility, you goddamn hypocrite.

the atheist, self-ascribed arbiter of reason is holding out for the incredibly unlikely, never witnessed or even logically coherent notion that something can begin without a cause.

You're just mad that I don't call the thing that exists without a cause the name that you call it.

Besides, I never said I believed in things existing without causes, just that Kalam fails to sufficiently- read: at all- demonstrate the fiat assertion it makes that things cannot exist without causes. That's your second strawman.

If things could begin without a cause, what is so selective about "nothing", that makes it select universes or singularities?

False dichotomy, because "existing without a cause," is not the same thing as "popped into existence from nothing." Can you try not making a dishonest and fallacious argument for a change?

Like i said, don't take atheist words for anything. If Christianity is right, atheists are dishonest fools. Keep this in mind.

Oh, are we back to talking about this "everyone knows that god exists," crap, you dishonest, presumptuous fuck?

[KevinM1]

I thought we were all Luciferians. Which is it?

[YGninja]

the properties of the cause are similar/identical to the properties of God, particularly the Abrahamic ones.

No, they're not. They're particular to every creator deity unimaginative idiots have conjured up in their mythologizing of the past.

Like i said, don't take atheist words for anything. If Christianity is right, atheists are dishonest fools. Keep this in mind.

If Christian theology is wrong, it's the biggest waste of time and energy humans that have ever devoted themselves to. Sadly, even if Christian theology is right, it's still the biggest waste of time and energy that humans have ever devoted themselves to.

How many creator-of-all-things deities can you name?

Im not attacking atheists, im just warning the guy. If Christianity is true, atheists will be dishonest, so always check out claims made by atheists. If he takes everything you say as true, he's effectively already assuming Christianity is wrong.

[watchamadoodle]

We aren't arguing certainties here, only probabilities, the theists believes that things which begin to exist have a cause, the atheist, self-ascribed arbiter of reason is holding out for the incredibly unlikely, never witnessed or even logically coherent notion that something can begin without a cause.

Speaking only as a layman, I believe that there is no observable cause when a probability wave collapses into a specific observation. That is why it is considered random.

[KevinM1]

No, they're not. They're particular to every creator deity unimaginative idiots have conjured up in their mythologizing of the past.
If Christian theology is wrong, it's the biggest waste of time and energy humans that have ever devoted themselves to. Sadly, even if Christian theology is right, it's still the biggest waste of time and energy that humans have ever devoted themselves to.

How many creator-of-all-things deities can you name?

Im not attacking atheists, im just warning the guy. If Christianity is true, atheists will be dishonest, so always check out claims made by atheists. If he takes everything you say as true, he's effectively already assuming Christianity is wrong.

Still too lazy to do your own research, I see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity

[Esquilax]

Im not attacking atheists, im just warning the guy. If Christianity is true, atheists will be dishonest, so always check out claims made by atheists. If he takes everything you say as true, he's effectively already assuming Christianity is wrong.

Hey, speaking of dishonesty: you're "not attacking atheists," while simultaneously being a christian, and hence believing that christianity is true... and that atheists are dishonest. So you are attacking atheists, and saying you're not, which is a lie. Yay, reasoning claims out to their conclusion!

Blatant, idiotic poisoning of the well besides, the fact checking part of what you say is fine... though I notice you took the time to specify that you should only take the time to fact check the claims of people you disagree with, and not your own claims. So, in the end I guess this isn't so much a "warning" as it is a "dishonest presuppositionalist tactic."

[Cato]

""Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause"? Since when was "cause" a synonym for "god""

Its not, the properties of the cause are similar/identical to the properties of God, particularly the Abrahamic ones.

You're just making shit up. Nobody knows the properties of the cause of the universe.

---

How many creator-of-all-things deities can you name?

Zero. There's no such thing.

[Faith No More]

It's a fallacy of composition...

Ah! Thank you! Now my brain can stop wracking itself to remember the name of that damn fallacy...

[Mudhammam]

Im not attacking atheists, im just warning the guy. If Christianity is true, atheists will be dishonest, so always check out claims made by atheists. If he takes everything you say as true, he's effectively already assuming Christianity is wrong.

Is that how YOU evaluate claims people make? You think they only require justification if the person making them doesn't regularly and "symbolically" eat your dead Messiah?