Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] I've been voted best debater here two years running.

You are indeed a master debater.

[Mudhammam]

Finally, Kalam is particularly galling if you know the history of the argument. It's actually the second iteration of a more general cosmological argument that used to run: "Everything has a cause, the universe is a thing, therefore the universe has a cause." Perhaps you can see the obvious flaw in that rendition of the argument? "What caused god, then?"

When it became clear that the original cosmological argument was a non-starter, Kalam was invented. The "begins to exist" language was added to the first premise, and this is particularly infuriating because it was done so purely to keep the cosmological argument valid. No evidence had been found, no research conducted, no philosophical thought offered; the argument was wrong, and so based on absolutely nothing, it was changed so that it was not-wrong. It's so clear, just looking at the history, that the priorities of the people formulating this argument weren't to come to a correct conclusion, but to come to the god conclusion by any means necessary. That's not exactly a way to come to truth, that's a presupposition.

Where in history are you placing its origin? I see "Kalam" written all over Plato's argument for "soul" in Laws Book X:

---

Athenian (Ath). I mean this: when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle?

Clinias (Cle). Very true, and I quite agree.

Ath. Or, to put the question in another way, making answer to ourselves:-If, as most of these philosophers have the audacity to affirm, all things were at rest in one mass, which of the above-mentioned principles of motion would first spring up among them?

Cle. Clearly the self-moving; for there could be no change in them arising out of any external cause; the change must first take place in themselves.

Ath. Then we must say that self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second.

Cle. Quite true.

Ath. At this stage of the argument let us put a question.

Cle. What question?

Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it?

Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life?

Ath. I do.

Cle. Certainly we should.

Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life?

.......(skipping ahead a few lines)......

Ath. And what is the definition of that which is named "soul"? Can we conceive of any other than that which has been already given-the motion which can move itself?

Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul?

Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things?

Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things.

---

[FatAndFaithless]

[...] I've been voted best debater here two years running.

You are indeed a master debater.

In fact..perhaps he could be called...a 'Chronic Masterdebater'.

[Esquilax]

Where in history are you placing its origin? I see "Kalam" written all over Plato's argument for the soul in Laws Book X:

Somewhere in the 9th century, according to my research, though the argument was based on earlier works like Aristotle's prime-mover. I don't particularly take issue with the argument's historical location, so much as I do the reason that it exists; the language added to the standard cosmological argument, aside from being loaded with yet more assumptions, does nothing but allow the argument to escape from the obvious defeater the original had. It's a variant argument made without basis or research, solely to avoid a pitfall that was discovered with the first attempt. It's basically a moving goalpost in argument form.

In fact..perhaps he could be called...a 'Chronic Masterdebater'.

Well, I do often leave my debates with theists feeling chafed and spent...

[SteelCurtain]

Feel free to PM me if you want to learn more. My topics of note are evolution and the deconstruction of theistic arguments; apparently I'm good at that, I've been voted best debater here two years running.

[robvalue]

As far as rationalizations go, I think the Kalam is one of the very worst. Flawed premises, special pleading and an irrelevant conclusion.

If anyone was ever converted to any kind of theism on the strength of the Kalam, I'd be extremely surprised.

[Tonus]

I am 18 years old, raised as a Christian, and now beginning to ask questions and really figure out what I believe for myself. At the moment, I'm coming from basically a Christian perspective, but I am open to being convinced otherwise and looking to discuss the issues with someone.

I'm not inclined to try to convince someone otherwise, as much as I am interested in understanding what they believe and why they believe it. I think that's really all that a person should do, because I think too many of our beliefs are lightly held. If your beliefs can come through that kind of experience unscathed, then I don't see the use in trying to dissuade you.

To be honest, I'm a bit intimidated by the environment of the forum here. My fear is that if I try to have a serious, full-scale, in-depth discussion in this medium, I'll quickly be overwhelmed and bombarded.

Take your time reading and responding. There isn't a time limit that you need to worry about and you're not under any obligations. If it seems overwhelming, take the time you need to respond. If folks don't like that you don't respond right away, that's their issue. Rushing your responses rarely goes well, as it leads to misunderstandings and gaffes.

Welcome to the forums.

[Faith No More]

Nothing much to add about the Kalam argument. It's a claim that seems intuitive given our every day experiences, but when you break down the argument, it asserts things it cannot know.

I think the key thing to keep in mind here is the limitations of our minds to conceptualize the cosmos when we've evolved to interpret it at the macro scale at a specific point in time. Remember, our brains were built upon the need to survive, which only requires a superficial understanding of reality, and our understanding of the principle of cause of effect is built upon that need. And since the human mind evolved at a specific scale in a specific place in space-time, it is hubris for us to think all of our concepts and reasoning apply to the entire cosmos.

[Esquilax]

Feel free to PM me if you want to learn more. My topics of note are evolution and the deconstruction of theistic arguments; apparently I'm good at that, I've been voted best debater here two years running.

I figure I can allow myself one toot of the horn. Barely a toot at all, really. It's more of a footle.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In fact..perhaps he could be called...a 'Chronic Masterdebater'.

Well, I do often leave my debates with theists feeling chafed and spent...

... and smoking.

Not a cigarette, either.