RE: The Kalam Cosmological Argument
August 4, 2024 at 12:21 pm
(This post was last modified: August 4, 2024 at 12:23 pm by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(August 4, 2024 at 8:54 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:(August 4, 2024 at 5:44 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I don't see how that can be called 'successful', since it begins with a condition that is ill-defined and (possibly) self-contradictory.
Boru
Because there isn't anything obviously wrong with the form of the argument or it's assertions - a unique condition in the history of apologetics.
Of course there is - he fails to define ‘omniscient’ and ‘omnipotent’ in a way that makes those qualities non-contradictory. If the principle of non-contradiction is present in the argument, it becomes irrational. How is a non-rational argument ‘successful’?
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax