Vinny says
So basically
A) You can't find a hole in the obvious rebuttal to Kalam because it's demonstratable nonsense that should be confined to bedtime stories along with the christian bible, and
B) The answer is youtube videos and quotes from other religious folk who try to use dated hypothesis or arguments from logic to prove that god exists, despite every argument for causes and effects being completely torn down because they themselves pose more questions than they answer.
Again, you can't rationally define your criteria for things that need causes/don't need causes any more than you can define your criteria for selecting how many deities could potentially coexist, where they could coexist, extra-universal conditions etc. I've scrolled back over your posts and you're essentially content with letting youtube clips of religious fundies do the talking, even though their various logical traps pose more questions than they answer and are not backed up my material or empirical evidence. Please, feel free to redefine whatever the evidence is for god's existence and pose one of your dandy logical traps to me, and by all means i'll rip that one to pieces as I did with Kalam (it's worth noting that many of them bare a striking resemblance to Kalam and rely on the same ASSUMPTIONS, unreasoned CHERRY PICKING criteria and lack of evidence for assumed conditions/plains of existence.)
Quote:Actually, I just cited the first big proponent of the Kalam in the video above.
But my post doesn't touch the Kalam whatsoever. Perhaps the Kalam is the only argument you know of, in which case all that time you spent writing up your post should be spent looking up other arguments from a first cause like Aquinas' argument, Leibniz's argument, Aristotle's argument and the like.
How can you make such confident statements while being so ignorant about other arguments from a first cause?
So basically
A) You can't find a hole in the obvious rebuttal to Kalam because it's demonstratable nonsense that should be confined to bedtime stories along with the christian bible, and
B) The answer is youtube videos and quotes from other religious folk who try to use dated hypothesis or arguments from logic to prove that god exists, despite every argument for causes and effects being completely torn down because they themselves pose more questions than they answer.
Again, you can't rationally define your criteria for things that need causes/don't need causes any more than you can define your criteria for selecting how many deities could potentially coexist, where they could coexist, extra-universal conditions etc. I've scrolled back over your posts and you're essentially content with letting youtube clips of religious fundies do the talking, even though their various logical traps pose more questions than they answer and are not backed up my material or empirical evidence. Please, feel free to redefine whatever the evidence is for god's existence and pose one of your dandy logical traps to me, and by all means i'll rip that one to pieces as I did with Kalam (it's worth noting that many of them bare a striking resemblance to Kalam and rely on the same ASSUMPTIONS, unreasoned CHERRY PICKING criteria and lack of evidence for assumed conditions/plains of existence.)
