Stump the Christian?

[Randy Carson]

Ah...when I saw Simon Moon's post, I thought that must be who you were parroting.

And I dealt with those objections, didn't I?

No, the threads you gave me left me with the impression that in quiet discussions amongst yourselves (with no apparent theists around to close ranks around), a lot of you were still scratching your heads over how to deal with the KCA. I'm not sure you have even come to any definitive conclusions about whether the universe has always existed or not.

Parroting? Not exactly, as you may or may not be aware, what he posted is an accurate refutation of Kalam, which is you know, the same regardless of who's presenting it.

No,  you didn't. You outright dismissed the idea that Kalam is special pleading, continued to disregard the difference between the two meanings of 'beginning to exist', didn't even address the composition fallacy by stating that Kalam was not trying to prove the universe has a cause (when it obviously is. Cosmological argument, remember?), continued to ignore the fact that we simply cannot comprehend what was 'before' the universe and in response to Esq you just said you don't know enough to debate it. You also refused to see the god of the gaps in your reasoning and made a weak attempt to tu quoque abaris who clearly said he was fine with saying 'I don't know' by saying atheists are using 'science of the gaps'.

No, Randy. You didn't address shit. And until you do, I'm done wasting time on your dishonest tactics.

I'm sorry you feel that way. My responses were an honest attempt to address each of your points. For example, when did I claim the part highlighted above?

In response to Esq, yes, he wants to delve into the Bord-Guth-Vilenkin paper, and that is beyond me on a scientific level (if I had not quoted Vilienkin, my point would have remained unchanged - so this is a bit of a rabbit trail...unless Esq is arguing that the universe - any and all universes that may exist or may have ever existed - did not have a beginning at all). But that is not the same as discussing the alleged fallacies of the argument itself - which I did address with you.

As for Abaris, well, yes...if a tu quoque CAN be employed, then there is no special pleading. And yes, there is science-of-the-gaps reasoning because all the atheist has to do is to say, "Well, if we wait a thousand years or so, I'm sure science will have found the answer."

But until science finds a way to measure the timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, science simply cannot speak about God other than to say, "Dunno."

Finally, as one website is honest enough to admit, the KCA is "sophisticated, extensive" and "the most rigourous argument for theism that has ever been presented." And that was an ATHEIST website. The author goes on to take his shot at debunking the KCA, but lots of people have tried their hand at that and failed.

Needless to say, I've not read anything in this forum to date that convinces me that anyone here is any closer to accomplishing the feat.

[pocaracas]

What's the matter? run out of smart things to say?
I didn't speak about god... I spoke about people's beliefs in god(s). 2 different and not necessarily overlapping things.

And I spoke of the bachelor's belief in love and marriage...things that must be experienced.

Apparently, you do not realize how well I spoke.

Perhaps... I zoned out when I realized you were going into an analogy... as all analogies, it's flawed.

[Longhorn]

I'm sorry you feel that way. My responses were an honest attempt to address each of your points.

-_-

For example, when did I claim the part highlighted above?

The argument does not imply that because some things in the universe have a cause, therefore the whole universe must have a cause.

As for Abaris, well, yes...if a tu quoque CAN be employed, then there is no special pleading. And yes, there is science-of-the-gaps reasoning because all the atheist has to do is to say, "Well, if we wait a thousand years or so, I'm sure science will have found the answer."

No they don't. All they have to do is say 'I don't know'. That's it. Special pleading refers to god being immune to infinite regress, and god of the gaps to the fact that we don't know what was 'before', they are not mutually exclusive.

But until science finds a way to measure the timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, science simply cannot speak about God other than to say, "Dunno."

Measure the immaterial? The immaterial is immeasurable, that's why there's no proof anything immaterial exists. And science can say a lot more about god, namely that it is an unfalsifiable claim and therefore garbage. You could make hundreds of such claims, all exactly as valid as god.

Finally, as one website is honest enough to admit, the KCA is "sophisticated, extensive" and "the most rigourous argument for theism that has ever been presented." And that was an ATHEIST website. The author goes on to take his shot at debunking the KCA, but lots of people have tried their hand at that and failed.

Link please. And who said atheists can't be full of shit?

Needless to say, I've not read anything in this forum to date that convinces me that anyone here is any closer to accomplishing the feat.

Could it be because you're ignoring everything that is being said?

[abaris]

As for Abaris, well, yes...if a tu quoque CAN be employed, then there is no special pleading. And yes, there is science-of-the-gaps reasoning because all the atheist has to do is to say, "Well, if we wait a thousand years or so, I'm sure science will have found the answer."

No, science doesn't fill gaps. If they don't know, they don't know.

But, lover of analogies, you're taking the caveman approach as I pointed out. Something is beyond your understanding or simply unknown, it has to be god. But not just any god. It has to be the god you came to believe in. There are billions of people around the world doing the same. Just with one crucial exemption - it's a different god for them.

What defines me is the absence of faith. Science may or may not find the answers. I won't be around to check on them anyway. Because of genuine curiosity I do hope they find some additional big ones while I'm still alive, but my life won't be any poorer if they don't. Natural science, cosmology and astronomy aren't my fields anyway. My field is history, as I mentioned before. I freely admit to be a mathematical idiot. But knowing the methodology and checks applied I put more stock in scientific answers than I do in fiat claims.

[Esquilax]

Based upon your understanding of the best science currently available, did the universe have a beginning or not?

The best science currently available tends to favor the idea that we need a remapping of our entire understanding of physics, and even the lexicon we use to discuss it, in order to begin to model what happens beyond a certain point of Planck time. The short answer, then, is that the current science does not know whether the universe has a beginning or not, which is one of the things I like about science; it prioritizes having a good basis for an answer over just having an answer, and if it can't get that good basis it will defer until it can get that basis. We can say with a good degree of certainty that there needs to be a beginning to our current expansionary model of the universe, that this specific universe state needs a beginning, but beyond that point, we lack the technology to properly map what goes on there. It's an unknown, and it's best to just admit that, rather than twisting to try and get it to fit Kalam. If we don't have the evidence, then we don't have the evidence, and the rational course is to defer judgment, even if we ultimately cannot get such evidence in future.

Even if science is totally incapable of producing the requisite evidence- since you seem to be on a "faith in science!" equivocation kick lately- the honest thing to do is acknowledge that we then have no basis for formulating a conclusion, rather than just making one up.

In response to Esq, yes, he wants to delve into the Bord-Guth-Vilenkin paper, and that is beyond me on a scientific level (if I had not quoted Vilienkin, my point would have remained unchanged - so this is a bit of a rabbit trail...unless Esq is arguing that the universe - any and all universes that may exist or may have ever existed - did not have a beginning at all). But that is not the same as discussing the alleged fallacies of the argument itself - which I did address with you.

The point I was making is that we don't know, and that when you bring up the BGV theorem as proof positive of the premises of Kalam, then you are in fact misusing the content of the BGV theorem. You might be right regarding universal origins, you might not, we don't know, but the pertinent takeaway is that if you're right, then you're right on accident and not due to the rigors of current scientific investigation.

All it was, was amending the record; you made a factual mistake, and it's one that can be amended. The honest thing to do would be to retract your argument's use of that particular paper.

[Ravenshire]

The real question is: are YOU as an atheist willing to set aside YOUR presuppositions and consider the possibility that a god exists?

(emphasis is mine)

Holy fuck, but you are a stupid mother fucker. How many times must it be stated that most of us are former christers or come from christer homes where these ideas were dogmatically taught to us for years? We've tried the gawd hypothesis and found it lacking. Kindly quit straw manning our position as being one of never having investigated the claims.

[Simon Moon]

Finally, as one website is honest enough to admit, the KCA is "sophisticated, extensive" and "the most rigourous argument for theism that has ever been presented." And that was an ATHEIST website. The author goes on to take his shot at debunking the KCA, but lots of people have tried their hand at that and failed.

Needless to say, I've not read anything in this forum to date that convinces me that anyone here is any closer to accomplishing the feat.

The author you mention is an atheist philosopher named Michael Martin. 


The thing is, the majority of philosopher disagree with Martin. 

For example, Jeffrey Allen, Robert Greg Cavin, Peter Boghosian, and Nelson Pike. All Ph.D philosophers with comparable credentials as Michael Martin.

Jeffrey Allen wrote a pretty thorough refutation of Craig's version of KCA called, A Bug in William Lane Craig's KCA" in 2009.

[Simon Moon]

The real question is: are YOU as an atheist willing to set aside YOUR presuppositions and consider the possibility that a god exists?

How did I miss this?

Another straw man.

This is not the position of the vast majority of atheists.

I do not have a presupposition that a god does not exist. I DISBELIEVE a god exists due to the lack of demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and sound/valid logic to support the claim.

My atheism is purely a provisional position, and can be changed given the above criteria. 

I get the idea that can not grasp that our atheism is an outgrowth of skepticism. It is not dogmatic or a presupposition. It is simply the natural position to take when a claim does not meet its burden of proof.

Let me ask you this, without sufficient demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic to support the existence of a god, what should be my justification to believe one exists?

[Randy Carson]

Measure the immaterial? The immaterial is immeasurable, that's why there's no proof anything immaterial exists. And science can say a lot more about god, namely that it is an unfalsifiable claim and therefore garbage. You could make hundreds of such claims, all exactly as valid as god.

Okay. It is unfalsifiable. Now, we can walk across campus to the philosophy building where discussions about the existence of God are properly held.

Finally, as one website is honest enough to admit, the KCA is "sophisticated, extensive" and "the most rigourous argument for theism that has ever been presented." And that was an ATHEIST website. The author goes on to take his shot at debunking the KCA, but lots of people have tried their hand at that and failed.

Link please. And who said atheists can't be full of shit? [/quote]

Ah...agreement at last.

Aren't you glad that today, I finally meet the 30/30 requirement? Here is the link:

DR. CRAIG'S UNSUPPORTED PREMISE
By Francois Tremblay
Posted June 15, 2004
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Craig.cfm

Needless to say, I've not read anything in this forum to date that convinces me that anyone here is any closer to accomplishing the feat.

Could it be because you're ignoring everything that is being said?
[/quote]

Nah, I took the time to read all four threads. The real problem could be that it's simply all over my head.

[Randy Carson]

As for Abaris, well, yes...if a tu quoque CAN be employed, then there is no special pleading. And yes, there is science-of-the-gaps reasoning because all the atheist has to do is to say, "Well, if we wait a thousand years or so, I'm sure science will have found the answer."

No, science doesn't fill gaps. If they don't know, they don't know.

But, lover of analogies, you're taking the caveman approach as I pointed out. Something is beyond your understanding or simply unknown, it has to be god. But not just any god. It has to be the god you came to believe in. There are billions of people around the world doing the same. Just with one crucial exemption - it's a different god for them.

What defines me is the absence of faith. Science may or may not find the answers. I won't be around to check on them anyway. Because of genuine curiosity I do hope they find some additional big ones while I'm still alive, but my life won't be any poorer if they don't. Natural science, cosmology and astronomy aren't my fields anyway. My field is history, as I mentioned before. I freely admit to be a mathematical idiot. But knowing the methodology and checks applied I put more stock in scientific answers than I do in fiat claims.

Noted. Thanks.