(December 9, 2015 at 10:48 pm)SteveII Wrote:Im not posting the entire Kalam argument, but its easily refuted. It doesn't matter if it establishes a first cause, because they still would have to prove that god is that cause and you cant establish that god causes anything until you prove he exists first!!!! Which is why its a presuppostional argument, god must be assumed to exist first before he can be established as the cause.(December 9, 2015 at 10:19 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Yes it is because you haven't established that god exists yet, that is what your premises are supposed to prove. Kalam doesn't prove god it builds an argument around the assumption that god already exists and assumes his capabilities. You can not make an argument for god being a cause for anything until you establish that he actually exists.
Your missing the 20 paragraphs of argumentation that comes AFTER you establish that the universe had a cause. God is not just stated. Each factor is examined as to what could be the cause and not create an infinite regression. You can debate the conclusions all you want--you can't claim that the conclusion is simply "therefore God". The other arguments are similarly structured.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 29, 2024, 4:48 am
Thread Rating:
Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)