Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[Esquilax]

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.

So the question is whether or not the category of uncreated has anything in it at all. Let’s unpack that. First we are talking about something that actually exists. Next, this hypothetical being does not depend on anything else for its existence.

No one can say that reality does not exist. Nor is it possible to say that reality is anything other than one thing, since nothing other than reality exists. The ancients called this the All. The All cannot be created from nothing because nothing does not exist. Nor could the All have been created by another because then the All would no longer be one thing. Thus we have something uncreated that must exist: the All.

Further arguments build upon this certainty from which it becomes clear that the All must be, unlike the physical universe and the things in it, in full actuality. Right now I do not have time to fully present on those demonstrations. For now it is sufficient to show that Esquilax is simply wrong; the category of uncreated things does contain at least one thing: the All.

Do you think it's at all effective to argue that Kalam, which posits that reality was created, is justified in this assertion because the category of uncreated things contains reality?

I don't demonstrate those attributes? I don't need to, we're using logic and probability here. Scientists agree that time and matter originated at the big bang, hence it is reasonable to assume the cause of it be timeless and matterless.

And it's relatively easy to refute this simplistic logic, in that existence is a temporal condition, so any being that exists to cause reality is existing in time, since all that time is, is a linear chain of causal events. As for matterless, it's not as necessary a condition as you think; you've got no evidence that all matter originated in the big bang, especially since we've already established that the big bang is a transitional state from one state of reality to another, and not a creation ex nihilo deal. You can't be applying this "X/not-X" attribute dichotomy to something that, in our collective knowledge, we know relatively little about.

Where is he talking about expansion? He says "beginning", not "beginning of expansion". Why are you putting words in his mouth?

I'm not putting words into his mouth, we've had this discussion the last time, where I posted quotations from Vilenkin's professional work stating that, rather than being the literal beginning of all things, the point of pre-expansion was one requiring new mathematics that didn't exist yet, and that this was the chief conclusion of the paper. Your response was just to say that Vilenkin was assuming that, meaning that where Vilenkin's words can be twisted to agree with you, they're trustworthy, and where they disagree, they aren't. It's the dishonest core of your citation here, and you linked to the thread yourself, everyone can see you turning on a dime whenever it suits you. Here's the quote anyway, from the conclusion of Vilenkin's own paper:

Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20]. This is the chief result of our paper.

The "chief result" is that new physics is required to describe conditions at the boundary of universal expansion. Why would we need any physics at all if there was nothing beyond that point?

How am i creating a strawman? Here is your quote "the argument is just plain wrong. You won't find many scientists willing to state that the universe began to exist; what you will hear is that there was a beginning to the expansion of our universe into its current state". You have no point unless you are implying that the universe could have existed eternally, pre-expansion.

My point is that the scientists aren't willing to make a value judgment either way. They've suspended their conclusions until additional evidence is available, and I am doing likewise. You, on the other hand, are taking incomplete data, forcing it to fit with your presuppositions by ignoring whatever you need to ignore, and then deciding that anyone who doesn't agree with you automatically believes the contra-positive.

Its a metaphysical truth. Something beginning without a cause is incoherent.

... Within the causal framework present in the current state of the universe, which would not exist prior to that state. Why do you keep ignoring this point?

You have absolutely nothing to support "dead wrong", can you name a single thing which you know began to exist without a cause? You gonna make appeals to possibility all day?

And again, I have to ask, when have you seen anything begin to exist at all? I don't mean matter transitioning from one state to another, I mean matter beginning to exist period. Let's not pretend you've got some higher ground where observations are concerned.

The Kalam is not grounded in composition. It doesn't assert "because things need causes inside the universe, the universe needs a cause"

No, but you keep appealing to observations within the universe as justification for dismissing my position, which means that all the examples you're using occur within the universe, and from those examples you are concluding something and applying that beyond the universe too. Kalam has no fallacy of composition, but the way you're defending it does.

Kalam just has empty assertions.

It is straight-forward metaphysical truth. "All things which begin, need a cause". The truth of it transcends the borders of our universe; it could not be otherwise. Its simply an incoherent prospect that something can begin without a cause.

Argument from definition fallacy, since you don't get to just say that something is a metaphysical truth, so there. Oh, and argument from ignorance too, since the fact that it's incoherent to you does not mean it's impossible.

You know here that you are misrepresenting. Theists believe that God necessarily exists, and he did not begin, hence no cause is required.

Hence the "no matter how you wish to spin it." Covering for assertions with assertions is never good argumentation.

The evidence as it stands suggests a necessarily existing, timeless, spaceless, all powerful, personable, intelligent prime mover.

If you had evidence, you'd present it. Your problem is your inability or unwillingness to recognize when the things you're pointing to don't imply what you think they do.

No strawman. Something beginning with no cause is logically incoherent.

Your strawman is asserting that this is something I accept to be true, which I've explained to you multiple times is not an accurate statement.

Without a cause - no cause - nothing caused it. Nothing. No false dichotomy, just over zealous efforts to scream FALLACY!! because it impresses some people. Seeing as your objection was groundless, mind answering the question?

The particularly funny thing is that you deny you've made a false dichotomy, while simultaneously believing in something that has no cause and did not come from nothing: god. Eternal things have no cause, and did not come from nothing. Cyclical things also don't have that. Hence, demanding that the only two options are "has a cause" or "is caused by nothing" is a false dichotomy.

Did you know what a false dichotomy was before you decided you weren't committing one?

Thats clearly not the point i am making. I am advising, if Christianity is true, he can expect dishonesty from atheists, so check out everything before he accepts it as fact.

So, why is it that, if christianity is true, atheists will necessarily be dishonest?

PS, im glad you and the others here have shown their true colours. I was wondering how long you could keep up that charade.

Yeah, sorry, I've got no patience for willful ignorance, which you demonstrate in spades. I'm more than happy to play ball with others, just not you; consider that you are the common denominator in all these showings of true colors. Perhaps the problem isn't with us?