Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[robvalue]

The good thing about getting opinions from us lot about theistic stuff is you're gonna get the same answer from all of us a lot of the time. It's just a matter of who says it first :p Of course we all have differences of opinion, but we're all so used to religious arguments that we've kind of amalgamated :o

I exaggerate, but I've noticed you'll get a much narrower set of answers to a question from atheists than theists, on the whole.

[Clueless Morgan]

How do you guys refute the "Kalaam" argument? (some kind of supernatural, transcendent force or "god" must exist because of the necessity for a First Cause which is beyond matter, space, and time)

The problem with Kalam, the really big, fatal structural flaw with it, is that it doesn't conclude with the answer that the claimant is trying to defend. It literally doesn't answer the question it is posed as an answer to.

Yeah, is there a way I can set up an automatic "Kudos" for all Esq's deconstructing apologetics responses? Can we make that happen mods? I think that needs to happen.

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.

To be fair, the purpose of apologetics doesn't seem to be to convert people, it's to make people who question the bullshit they believe stop questioning the bullshit because, oo hey! An answer!!

Even WLC admits he wasn't converted through the use of apologetics.




You've gotten a lot of more qualified offers for PMs so unless you have some burning desire to PM me I'll hang out in your thread and see if there's anything of substance I can contribute.

In the mean time, take a cruise around IronChariots.org and see if that site helps to answer some of the questions about the apologetics issues you might have.

Here's a link specifically to the KCA page:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...l_Argument

[Mister Agenda]

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.

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. I don't want to be unable to reply adequately simply because of the quantity of messages by people disagreeing with me. I'd rather be able to discuss fairly back-and-forth, without being terrifically outnumbered. (which would make it impractical to adequately respond to everyone)

To that end, I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in starting a 1-on-1 correspondence with me? (hopefully it is not too out of place to request that) I'm looking for someone who is willing to be reasonable and civil, and help talk through the questions and issues I'm wondering about.

Looking forward to hearing from you guys!

Welcome, GriffinHunter! I recommend you spend some time establishing a good reputation here as a good contributor. It will help you to have productive interactions. We get a lot of irritating people here, to the point that it pays to show you're not one of them early on. Just my two cents.

[Jenny A]

I'm late to the party and everyone has done a brilliant job of refuting the First Cause argument generally and Kalaam's dressed up version in particular. I have just one note to add, and that is that I have no idea how to solve the conundrum of how things came to exist. The following propositions make my brain freeze:

1. Everything always existed.

2. Something or things have always existed.

3. Somethings sprang into existence out of nothing without apparent cause.

4. Everything sprang into existence out of nothing.

5. Something created something out of nothing.

6. Something created everything else out of nothing.

All of these propositions appear logically impossible in a cause driven universe which is the kind of universe Kaalam assumes. Kaalam's proof requires you believe that: propositions 2 and 5, and 6 are true but propositions 1, 3, and 4 are not. As all of the propositions appear logically impossible, I don't see how Kaalam can assume 2, 5, and 6 are true. To be plausible Kaalam would have to explain why propositions 2, 5, and 6 are possible while propositions but 1, 2, and 4 are not. He doesn't do that.

But even if he did, consider the following:

1. Granting all of Kaalam's argument (silly but just take it on faith for the moment) is there any indication whatsoever that this being the always existed before creating the universe still exists now? Perhaps it expired with the effort?

2. Is a first existing thing that creates necessarily even a being, let alone a god? And even if it were god, what kind of god would it be? This is no proof of a god, let alone the god the Christians worship. It attempts no more than proof of a first cause.

Note that the fact I can't choose among propositions 1-6 and doesn't prove anything in particular. I just don't find a need to label my confusion god.

Please do not feel attacked by answers to your question. You have no duty to refute the answers. But if some of them don't make sense by all means question.

[Aractus]

How do you guys refute the "Kalaam" argument? (some kind of supernatural, transcendent force or "god" must exist because of the necessity for a First Cause which is beyond matter, space, and time)

Until the day we fully understand the universe, we may never have an answer to that question that will satisfy everyone. But not having an answer doesn't mean that we are expected to produce one.

All of our models of the universe are limited. For instance, there's no way to use quantum mechanics in order to successfully land a probe on Mars, no matter how "accurate" it is at describing the microverse.

Matter is presently theorised to exist due to gravity alone. Gravity causes matter and antimatter to separate, due to compressing and "curving" spacetime. That mechanism in conjunction with an expanding universe is what causes matter to exist. It doesn't cause the universe to exist, nor does it give it its properties, but it does fully explain the first part of the question.

[abentwookie]

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.

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. I don't want to be unable to reply adequately simply because of the quantity of messages by people disagreeing with me. I'd rather be able to discuss fairly back-and-forth, without being terrifically outnumbered. (which would make it impractical to adequately respond to everyone)

To that end, I'm wondering if anyone would be interested in starting a 1-on-1 correspondence with me? (hopefully it is not too out of place to request that) I'm looking for someone who is willing to be reasonable and civil, and help talk through the questions and issues I'm wondering about.

Looking forward to hearing from you guys!

Welcome to the community! As a follower of Wheaton's Law, I always try to keep things as civil as possible and would be happy to answer any questions. I see that several people have already addressed Kalam so I won't bother discussing that particularly annoying subject right now. Honestly, anytime someone mentions it, I feel the urge to slam my head down on my desk due to the excruciatingly boring nature of those discussions. I will say that there are quite a few problems with Kalam, with the most blatant one being a case of special pleading.

I recommend watching Scott Clifton's (aka TheoreticalBullshit) videos about the subject. https://www.youtube.com/user/TheoreticalBullshit/videos

[Delicate]

I'm sorry, but almost everything here is absolute garbage so far as refuting the first-cause argument.

[Mudhammam]

I'm sorry, but almost everything here is absolute garbage so far as refuting the first-cause argument.

Then go back and reread it more carefully.

[Surgenator]

Why is it garbage? Please elaborate.

[Esquilax]

I'm sorry, but almost everything here is absolute garbage so far as refuting the first-cause argument.

So present your case for why that is. Don't just expect us to take it on faith; that's the religionist's bag.