(March 23, 2015 at 2:32 am)Esquilax Wrote:(March 23, 2015 at 12:55 am)Delicate Wrote: It's evident that you're confused since you're still harping on definitions.
But like I said, definition don't matter. Replace God with any variable, where the object represented by the variable has the property of being uncreated.
The theist now alleges to have an argument for the existence of something that has the property of being uncreated.
Except that I wouldn't call that an argument, I'd call it a definition. Not a one of the theists who seem to think Kalam is so cogent and relevant has ever even approached making an argument that the category of uncreated things has anything in it at all. For all your bluster, you haven't either.
Quote:And your whole definition spiel has become irrelevant. If you have to argue against this you have make a metaphysical objection, not a definitional objection.
I don't have to make any objection at all, since the burden of proof lies with those asserting the existence of this particular category. I'm not required to prove anyone wrong before they've presented evidence that they're right, and this is kinda the big issue with Kalam.
Quote:I don't know why you think you've made so many great points when they are so obviously silly and false.
... He said, still failing to even address a single one of them.
Quote:If you want to make a serious objection to cosmological arguments, a much more substantial way to do it is via the metaphysics of causation.
I'm actually pretty happy with merely pointing out the unjustified fiat assertions that make up one hundred percent of Kalam's premises, plus the fact that the basis of the argument, within the bounds of the current science at our disposal, has no means with which to demonstrate itself at all, and is thus unfalsifiable and, hence, worthless as an indicator of reality.
Thus far, you've done little but focus on the tertiary concerns I had about the argument, all the while content to simply dismiss the meat of my argumentation as bad by fiat. It's really hard to actually address your position here when you continually fail to make your objections present, must less clear.
I predicted you would still be stuck on the definition thing, and here you are. Stuck on the definition thing.
I don't see you playing a different song on this one, buddy. I'm not going to bother.
For the rest of the readers out there, this is how you know Esquilax is wrong:
-Definitions are about the meanings of words.
-Metaphysics is about the nature of reality.
When someone says a being exists (call it x) which has the set of properties P, they are not making a claim about the meaning of words. They are making a claim about reality, namely "Reality, ie 'the total set of everything that exist,' includes as a member 'entity x with properties P.'"
This is a claim about reality. The question is, does such an entity exist or not? Does the evidence justify belief in the existence of this entity or not? What is the nature of this entity? All metaphysical questions. Don't be a broken record like our friend Esquilax here.
