Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[Norman Humann]

I'd start Normanism, but it sounds too much like Mormonism. And you can't pronounce the double n in Humannism. I'm screwed.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Reality, ie 'the total set of everything that exist,' includes as a member 'entity x with properties P.'"…This is a claim about reality.

Delicate, as a junior member, you need to understand something about Esquilax; he is an excellent debater. His bag of tricks plays on very specific modern reworkings of long-standing philosophical arguments. If you are not clear about the historic meaning of certain terms his distractions will trip you up.

So, I feel it necessary to tell you that the William Lane Craig also forgets the neo-Scholastic underpinnings of cosmological arguments. Without those underpinnings, certain ambiguities get incorporated that atheists exploit.

You are correct in so far as the argument concerns the nature of reality taken as a whole, which should not be confused with physical reality. The pre-Socratics started this inquiry and while many would dismiss their arguments, they provide an important and necessary context which I will summarize below while addressing Esquilax’s argument of convenience.

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.

So the question is whether or not the category of uncreated has anything in it at all. Let’s unpack that. First we are talking about something that actually exists. Next, this hypothetical being does not depend on anything else for its existence.

No one can say that reality does not exist. Nor is it possible to say that reality is anything other than one thing, since nothing other than reality exists. The ancients called this the All. The All cannot be created from nothing because nothing does not exist. Nor could the All have been created by another because then the All would no longer be one thing. Thus we have something uncreated that must exist: the All.

Further arguments build upon this certainty from which it becomes clear that the All must be, unlike the physical universe and the things in it, in full actuality. Right now I do not have time to fully present on those demonstrations. For now it is sufficient to show that Esquilax is simply wrong; the category of uncreated things does contain at least one thing: the All.

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.

Wow! I do not think I have ever heard on such an honest profession of radical nominalism.

[Pizza]

Yeah..well, Pizz, we'll just see which of our isms draws the more competently violent adherents and settle it the traditional way. Deal?
(pft...you don't even have proof...talk about a cut rate cult)

If pizza exists, then pizzatheism is true.
Pizza exists.
Pizzatheism is true.

Why are you so stupid, fool?! Reason is on my side!

[The Grand Nudger]

-needs moar circles!

[Pizza]

I have an idea of a perfect pizza(a pizza that exists in all possible worlds), therefore a perfect pizza exists!

[robvalue]

Finally, we're getting somewhere. And I love pizza, so that makes these tasty arguments easier to swallow. Sign me up.

[KevinM1]

Did the pepperoni die for my sins? Is that why it's red?

[YGninja]

""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.

I don't demonstrate those attributes? I don't need to, we're using logic and probability here. Scientists agree that time and matter originated at the big bang, hence it is reasonable to assume the cause of it be timeless and matterless.

"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.

Where is he talking about expansion? He says "beginning", not "beginning of expansion". Why are you putting words in his mouth? Don't pretend to be a friend of science when you perform this act continually. Give me a quote to support your point. Regarding expansion Vilenkin only seems to document that a generally expanding universe requires a beginning, which is a characteristic of our own. All models for a past eternal universe have failed.

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.

How am i creating a strawman? Here is your quote "the argument is just plain wrong. You won't find many scientists willing to state that the universe began to exist; what you will hear is that there was a beginning to the expansion of our universe into its current state". You have no point unless you are implying that the universe could have existed eternally, pre-expansion.

"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.

Its a metaphysical truth. Something beginning without a cause is incoherent. You have absolutely nothing to support "dead wrong", can you name a single thing which you know began to exist without a cause? You gonna make appeals to possibility all day?

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.

The Kalam is not grounded in composition. It doesn't assert "because things need causes inside the universe, the universe needs a cause", It is straight-forward metaphysical truth. "All things which begin, need a cause". The truth of it transcends the borders of our universe; it could not be otherwise. Its simply an incoherent prospect that something can begin without a cause.

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.

You know here that you are misrepresenting. Theists believe that God necessarily exists, and he did not begin, hence no cause is required. The evidence as it stands suggests a necessarily existing, timeless, spaceless, all powerful, personable, intelligent prime mover.

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.

Don't know what point, if any, you are making.

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.

No strawman. Something beginning with no cause is logically incoherent.

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?

Without a cause - no cause - nothing caused it. Nothing. No false dichotomy, just over zealous efforts to scream FALLACY!! because it impresses some people. Seeing as your objection was groundless, mind answering the question?

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?

Thats clearly not the point i am making. I am advising, if Christianity is true, he can expect dishonesty from atheists, so check out everything before he accepts it as fact.

PS, im glad you and the others here have shown their true colours. I was wondering how long you could keep up that charade.

[Clueless Morgan]

Rhythm, I have leftover pizza for dinner tonight. If I eat my leftover pizza, am I committing a heretical act? Or should I convert to Pizzatheism before 7pm tonight lest my own personal rhythm cause a warp in the time-space continuum? Would it be sufficient to eat my pizza whilst listening to heavy percussion? I JUST DON'T KNOW!!!!

Guide me, oh rhythmic one!

[Faith No More]

I have an idea of a perfect pizza(a pizza that exists in all possible worlds), therefore a perfect pizza exists!

All hail the greatest conceivable pizza!