Terrible Atheist Argument #1

[WesOlsen]

Started off with typical butthurt, which looks like a combination of anger, resentment and hate.

My pleasure

Misunderstood the post as a reference to the kalam, as opposed to a more general first cause argument. By the way there is no such thing as "kalam's argument."

It is referred to variously as the Kalam argument, Kalam's argument, the Kalam hypothesis............we can call it Chad Mcrisps ladyboy whip cheng hypothesis if we like, the important thing is that we're referring to the same thing. And the first cause ties in HUGELY with Kalam, because they both deal with many crossover concepts (things that are created and things that are caused).

Tried to hide the lack of substance with words like "plonkers", "yonks", "boink" and other sounds you associate with circus clowns.

Actually the bulk of it was ripped straight out of critical thinking texts, which are pretty substance heavy. One wonders whether you're trying to distract from the content of the arguments here.

Your first objection was "We have no real (as opposed to fake? -V) experience with..." I don't even need to finish the sentence to call it false as we reasonably accept things that we don't have experience of all the time, from quantum mechanics to the big bang.

You then say "We know of nothing that..." doesn't matter what comes after it, if the argument is "We don't know of something that is like P, therefore P cannot exist." the argument is invalid as possibility is not dependent on scientific knowledge.

Your nitpicking is quite ludicrous. Let's ignore the adjective before evidence and sit with "We have no evidence of things that do not begin to exist". This is fundamentally true, and you confuse things we don't have experience of with things that do not begin to exist (that we coincidentally have no experience of). Whilst we have not witnessed the big bag first hand, there is a wealth of evidence from the world of physics that fits in to a wider theory of physics. Likewise with quantum mechanics there are examples too numerous to mention. I'll give you the Higgs Boson as a good example though. It fit in to a probable model of particle physics, was theorised as being likely to exist but as with most things scientific a test was conducted to confirm its existence or at least discount alternatives. You're right in that we do accept things that we have not personally witnessed. For example i've never held a chunk of dark matter however it fits in to the existing framework, dark matter is also not claimed to have never begun to have existed. What you can't get your head around is that we have no experience of things that don't begin to exist, which is entirely true.

Also I did not say that because we have no knowledge of P, therefore P CANNOT exist. I've just used the example of the higgs boson as something that was theorised but not initially proven, and was then subsequently proven (although it is very much work in progress at the moment, granted). What I said was that if we have no knowledge of P, we can't theorise P and say that because I theorised it that it must exist, especially when I haven't defined any of P's properties (scientifically, mathematically etc) or the conditions in the vague realm that it apparently occupies. Please re-read my post or better still read it from a book in the library, it's all been debunked long ago.

There's no word such as hypothetics.

Again your more content here with resorting to nitpicking re: spelling and grammar errors, because you haven't really understood the fallacies of cosmological or first cause arguments, which were documented a long time ago.

And at this point I think I want to take a break, my brain can only handle so much.

When you've recovered from the mental anguish of reading the rebuttals to kalam and causality etc, you can come back and address the core problems with what you propose, namely that there is no rational basis for your criteria for things that do not begin to exist, that there is no rational basis for the assumption (or lack) of conditions in extra-universal plains, and rub out the special pleading whilst you're at it. Then you can explain the more theology orientated questions posed by your initial post, such as why, if god is perfect, does he have needs etc. Either counter my original rebuttal rationally or get a friend to do it for you. Better still, read a variety of sources, including the OPPOSING case for these flimsy arguments and it might help you to understand why we're all saying "we've heard it all before, it was beaten, battered and bruised a long time ago".