Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 30, 2025, 12:08 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?
RE: Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?
(August 27, 2013 at 2:08 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Also - you are correct in that I reversed the meaning of "valid" and "sound" with respect to logical arguments. Mea culpa. That error does not detract from the point of my post that P1 and P2 of the KCA are not known to be true, for the reasons I gave.

With respect to your argument that premises one and two of the KCA are "not known to be true", it will suffice to say that they do not need to be known to be true unless you require that the premises be absolutely certainly known.

If you take this view, then there are at least two conspicuous issues you must deal with:

1. You must admit that not only does the KCA fail to be persuasive, but every other argument that has been formulated or ever will be formulated that does not have premises that are known to be true beyond all doubt i.e. absolutely known. Surely you do not want to go to such epistemically restrictive lengths just to avoid the conclusion of an argument would you?

2. In addition to the above, your objection is based upon a misconstrual of what the requisites or criteria that a premise in an argument must meet. You wrongly reason that in order for a premise to be considered "true" that it must be proven and or known with absolute certainty. This is clearly false.

In a good argument, the argument will have premises that are more plausible than their contradictories or denials . For an argument to be a good one , it is not required that we have 100% certainty of the truth of the premises. Some of the premises in a good argument may strike us as only slightly more plausible than their denials; other premises may seem to us highly plausible in contrast to their denials. But so long as a statement is more plausible than its contradictory (that is, its negation), then one should believe it rather than its negation, and so it may serve as a premise in a good argument. (Moreland, James Porter; William Lane Craig (2009-11-08). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (pp. 29-30). Intervarsity Press - A. Kindle Edition.)

My friend, these concepts we are dealing with are basic introduction to philosophy concepts. They must be mastered if you wish to actually get into genuine debate regarding the KCA.

Now you can understand why the criterion of plausibility is used in critiquing the quality of a premise and not absolute certainty which you claim is required.

While it is true that we would like to be able to provide premises that are highly plausible or pretty certain, it simply is not necessary to know beyond all doubt that a premise is true for it to be a part of a good argument. Even in deductive arguments, which is what the KCA is, the premises themselves can and often times are supported using inductive arguments.

Therefore, since I have presented the argument to you in order to convince you or persuade you that "the universe has a cause" by using a deductive syllogistic argument, if you do not find the conclusion persuasive or convincing, you must offer either an undercutting or rebutting defeater to premise one or two.

Simply dismissing the argument by saying the premises are not known to be true does not constitute either a rebutting or undercutting defeater to either premise. For this reason you will find no contemporary philosopher objecting to the KCA in their peer reviewed published work on these grounds that you have suggested.

Now, if you do not wish to debate the KCA further with me, then I respect that, and thank you for your time.

Best of wishes to you and may you learn more and more each day! Clap

P.S., some have suggested that quantum physics furnishes us with an exception to premise one in that virtual particles are uncaused. If this line is one you would like to use, then I am prepared to engage it.
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong? - by discipulus - August 27, 2013 at 6:42 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  [Serious] Could an omnipotent and omniscient god prove that he was God? Jehanne 136 20456 January 26, 2023 at 11:33 am
Last Post: GrandizerII
  Does Ezekiel 23:20 prove that God is an Incel Woah0 26 5097 September 17, 2022 at 5:12 pm
Last Post: Woah0
  Am I right to assume, that theists cannot prove that I am not god? Vast Vision 116 43098 March 5, 2021 at 6:39 am
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Theists: how do you account for psychopaths? robvalue 288 58536 March 5, 2021 at 6:37 am
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Theists: What do you mean when you say that God is 'perfect'? Angrboda 103 24385 March 5, 2021 at 6:35 am
Last Post: arewethereyet
  What would you do if you found out God existed Catholic_Lady 545 124158 March 5, 2021 at 3:28 am
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  Are there any theists here who think God wants, or will take care of, Global Warming? Duty 16 4808 January 19, 2020 at 11:50 am
Last Post: Smedders
  Turns out we were all wrong. Here's undeniable proof of god. EgoDeath 6 1911 September 16, 2019 at 11:18 pm
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  "Don't take away people's hope" Brian37 96 16516 August 8, 2019 at 7:20 pm
Last Post: WinterHold
Thumbs Down 11-Year-Old Genius Proves Hawking Wrong About God Fake Messiah 7 1647 April 16, 2019 at 8:13 pm
Last Post: Succubus



Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)