Stump the Christian?

[Randy Carson]

Ah...when I saw Simon Moon's post, I thought that must be who you were parroting.

And I dealt with those objections, didn't I?

No, the threads you gave me left me with the impression that in quiet discussions amongst yourselves (with no apparent theists around to close ranks around), a lot of you were still scratching your heads over how to deal with the KCA. I'm not sure you have even come to any definitive conclusions about whether the universe has always existed or not.

Parroting? Not exactly, as you may or may not be aware, what he posted is an accurate refutation of Kalam, which is you know, the same regardless of who's presenting it.

No,  you didn't. You outright dismissed the idea that Kalam is special pleading, continued to disregard the difference between the two meanings of 'beginning to exist', didn't even address the composition fallacy by stating that Kalam was not trying to prove the universe has a cause (when it obviously is. Cosmological argument, remember?), continued to ignore the fact that we simply cannot comprehend what was 'before' the universe and in response to Esq you just said you don't know enough to debate it. You also refused to see the god of the gaps in your reasoning and made a weak attempt to tu quoque abaris who clearly said he was fine with saying 'I don't know' by saying atheists are using 'science of the gaps'.

No, Randy. You didn't address shit. And until you do, I'm done wasting time on your dishonest tactics.

I'm sorry you feel that way. My responses were an honest attempt to address each of your points. For example, when did I claim the part highlighted above?

In response to Esq, yes, he wants to delve into the Bord-Guth-Vilenkin paper, and that is beyond me on a scientific level (if I had not quoted Vilienkin, my point would have remained unchanged - so this is a bit of a rabbit trail...unless Esq is arguing that the universe - any and all universes that may exist or may have ever existed - did not have a beginning at all). But that is not the same as discussing the alleged fallacies of the argument itself - which I did address with you.

As for Abaris, well, yes...if a tu quoque CAN be employed, then there is no special pleading. And yes, there is science-of-the-gaps reasoning because all the atheist has to do is to say, "Well, if we wait a thousand years or so, I'm sure science will have found the answer."

But until science finds a way to measure the timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, science simply cannot speak about God other than to say, "Dunno."

Finally, as one website is honest enough to admit, the KCA is "sophisticated, extensive" and "the most rigourous argument for theism that has ever been presented." And that was an ATHEIST website. The author goes on to take his shot at debunking the KCA, but lots of people have tried their hand at that and failed.

Needless to say, I've not read anything in this forum to date that convinces me that anyone here is any closer to accomplishing the feat.