Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[Delicate]

The claim isn't "everything must have a cause" but "everything that begins to exist must have a cause." The sets of objects under discussion are different in both propositions.

And the fact that the "begins to exist" part was a lazy workaround addition to Kalam to avoid being asked the question "who created god?" doesn't bother you because...?

Was it really a lazy workaround? Do you know that? How do you know, through supernatural revelation? Aren't you just assuming bad faith and poisoning the discussion to start off with? Can you imagine being in a discussion with someone who believed differently, and suddenly they started making up shit and throwing accusations at you?

Once we go this route, we can't discuss the ideas themselves, because we're too busy smearing the people.

And that's too bad because all we end up with is shit on our hands.

Can we assume good faith on both sides of the issue, unless you know something is dishonest for a fact, and can prove it?

[Esquilax]

Was it really a lazy workaround? Do you know that? How do you know, through supernatural revelation? Aren't you just assuming bad faith and poisoning the discussion to start off with? Can you imagine being in a discussion with someone who believed differently, and suddenly they started making up shit and throwing accusations at you?

So, Kalam is a variant of the original cosmological argument, which does not feature the "begins to exist" language. The one came first, then the other was refined from it, but the key thing to keep in mind is this: at no point was any research done, no justifications given for the change, other than that the original cosmological argument had such a big, gaping hole in it.

Kalam itself is an old argument- we find its earliest uses in the ninth century- and I fully grant that it comes based on Aristotelian philosophy, particularly the idea of a prime mover, but like the prime mover concept it has no evidence behind it; it is, in fact, an unjustified assertion. You can go off on me with a bunch of random assumptions about how I know, and that I'm really just starting off in bad faith, but I've actually researched the history of this argument; when I say it went from the one form to the other, with no additional evidence or justification, I really do mean that, and I really do know what I'm talking about.

Once we go this route, we can't discuss the ideas themselves, because we're too busy smearing the people.

And that's too bad because all we end up with is shit on our hands.

Can we assume good faith on both sides of the issue, unless you know something is dishonest for a fact, and can prove it?

I didn't say it as dishonest, I said it was lazy. And it is, in that it's guilty of the same sort of poor argumentation that Kalam itself is guilty of, and you too, in fact, when you define god as uncreated because that's how you want to define him. The point is that you can't define your way to a good argument; the "begins to exist" language has no better justification than the original cosmological premise did.

[Simon Moon]

And the fact that the "begins to exist" part was a lazy workaround addition to Kalam to avoid being asked the question "who created god?" doesn't bother you because...?

Was it really a lazy workaround? Do you know that? How do you know, through supernatural revelation? Aren't you just assuming bad faith and poisoning the discussion to start off with? Can you imagine being in a discussion with someone who believed differently, and suddenly they started making up shit and throwing accusations at you?

Once we go this route, we can't discuss the ideas themselves, because we're too busy smearing the people.

And that's too bad because all we end up with is shit on our hands.

Can we assume good faith on both sides of the issue, unless you know something is dishonest for a fact, and can prove it?

Even if it wasn't intentionally meant to be a lazy workaround, that's how it is used.

But the main problem with adding 'begins to exist' to the argument only results in making the argument more fallacious. The argument now affirms the consequent, where before it was only guilty of the fallacies of equivocation, special pleading and composition.

I'm constantly surprised when theists think the addition of 'begins to exist' makes the argument stronger.

So, feel free to add one more fallacy to an already flawed argument.

[watchamadoodle]

I don't know if anybody has mentioned this, but what does "a cause"/"cause"/etc. mean? Why should every change in reality have a cause from the past? The cause and effect model may be something that works well for our hunter/gatherer brains, but it doesn't work for cosmology?

[Delicate]

Was it really a lazy workaround? Do you know that? How do you know, through supernatural revelation? Aren't you just assuming bad faith and poisoning the discussion to start off with? Can you imagine being in a discussion with someone who believed differently, and suddenly they started making up shit and throwing accusations at you?

So, Kalam is a variant of the original cosmological argument, which does not feature the "begins to exist" language. The one came first, then the other was refined from it, but the key thing to keep in mind is this: at no point was any research done, no justifications given for the change, other than that the original cosmological argument had such a big, gaping hole in it.

Kalam itself is an old argument- we find its earliest uses in the ninth century- and I fully grant that it comes based on Aristotelian philosophy, particularly the idea of a prime mover, but like the prime mover concept it has no evidence behind it; it is, in fact, an unjustified assertion. You can go off on me with a bunch of random assumptions about how I know, and that I'm really just starting off in bad faith, but I've actually researched the history of this argument; when I say it went from the one form to the other, with no additional evidence or justification, I really do mean that, and I really do know what I'm talking about.

Once we go this route, we can't discuss the ideas themselves, because we're too busy smearing the people.

And that's too bad because all we end up with is shit on our hands.

Can we assume good faith on both sides of the issue, unless you know something is dishonest for a fact, and can prove it?

I didn't say it as dishonest, I said it was lazy. And it is, in that it's guilty of the same sort of poor argumentation that Kalam itself is guilty of, and you too, in fact, when you define god as uncreated because that's how you want to define him. The point is that you can't define your way to a good argument; the "begins to exist" language has no better justification than the original cosmological premise did.

Okay let's get one thing clear here: I didn't come up with the definition of God. The definition of God as a necessary and uncreated being has existed for thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands if not more. This idea of God wasn't concocted to make a good argument, it was what theists actually believe, independent of any arguments or definition-wars. So don't bullshit me about this being how I want to define God. What you're saying here- that this is how I want to define God- is verifiably nonsense.

Now let's get to cosmological arguments. Arguments are tweaked all the time, purely on the basis of what premises are more or less plausible. You don't need evidence or justification to adjust your premises. All you need to do is make sure the premise is true, or plausibly true (because you can't be certain about some things) and the premise supports the argument. I imagine your objection is sort of a "gotcha" objection, but that's not quite how it works.

The "begins to exist" thing is a feature of the original Kalam by Al Ghazali, made around 1000 AD. If you're referring to an older cosmological argument that has this gaping hole, I'd love to hear which one it is specifically. Aquinas'? Aristotle's? What's the wording under consideration?

As far as I can tell, there are some arguments, like the Leibnizian cosmological argument, that don't have "begins to exist." The LCA says something like

(1) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence...

Which has no "begins to exist", and is framed in terms of explanations, not causes. This kind of premise says everything, whether it begins or not, has an explanation of its existence. So when you ask "Well what's the explanation for God?" The LCA points to the non-contingency of God (ie God is a necessary being, so if God exists, God exists necessarily, ie in all possible worlds).

But I imagine you were referring to a different original cosmological argument in particular.

[Vox Populi]

I am not like a huge source of knowledge but will help where I can. There are many Atheist 101 sites that are open to all faiths.. You can find it on Google; it's well formatted and very easy to read.

[watchamadoodle]

Delicate, doesn't it seem like the epitome of hubris to apply these abstractions like time, explanations, causes to prove God?

[Delicate]

Delicate, doesn't it seem like the epitome of hubris to apply these abstractions like time, explanations, causes to prove God?

These days I feel like anything you say or do comes with a double-serving of hubris. It's hard to accept one and reject another.

[Esquilax]

Okay let's get one thing clear here: I didn't come up with the definition of God. The definition of God as a necessary and uncreated being has existed for thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands if not more. This idea of God wasn't concocted to make a good argument, it was what theists actually believe, independent of any arguments or definition-wars. So don't bullshit me about this being how I want to define God. What you're saying here- that this is how I want to define God- is verifiably nonsense.

Oh, I see: so basically you think that adding an argument from tradition fallacy to your argument from definition will make it less fallacious.

No, I don't care who came up with the definition: what matters here is that fiat definition is not justification for existence. You can't just say that god is uncreated by definition, and therefore that's okay. You can wrap yourself in definitions as much as you like, but not a one of them will be adequate defense against the simple fact that you've offered no justification for that at all.

Now let's get to cosmological arguments. Arguments are tweaked all the time, purely on the basis of what premises are more or less plausible. You don't need evidence or justification to adjust your premises.

You kinda do, if your new premises are going to suggest the existence of an entire new category of existence (things that do not begin to exist). You also kinda do, if you want to justify the tweak to your premises, rather than have it be, indeed, a dodge to avoid the obvious flaw in your first argument. See, when I formulate an argument and the first premise is shown to be obviously false, I don't look for ways to tweak the argument to get around that, because I'm not bound to this position where the argument just has to be true no matter what. I just make a new argument that's more accurate than the one that's obviously false.

With Kalam, you have an initial argument that isn't based on evidence, and is nothing but invention, and you have a refinement of the argument, which also isn't based on evidence and is nothing but invention... well, where's the reason I should take that seriously? Where, in that pile of unjustified nothings created by theologians with a prior commitment to an ideology, am I supposed to find a signifier of objective reality?

Why should I even consider stuff that people have just made up?

All you need to do is make sure the premise is true, or plausibly true (because you can't be certain about some things) and the premise supports the argument. I imagine your objection is sort of a "gotcha" objection, but that's not quite how it works.

Actually, I don't consider this point an argument against Kalam. The argument against Kalam is that none of the premise are supported by anything even approaching evidence; my point about its development is just a demonstration of how theistic arguments are built and altered to match a presupposition, rather than as observations of reality.

The "begins to exist" thing is a feature of the original Kalam by Al Ghazali, made around 1000 AD. If you're referring to an older cosmological argument that has this gaping hole, I'd love to hear which one it is specifically. Aquinas'? Aristotle's? What's the wording under consideration?

You do understand that there are other, older cosmological arguments than Kalam, right? And that Kalam is a modulation of those older arguments?

And that any cosmological argument without the "begins to exist" language is easily debunked by asking who created god?

[Delicate]

Okay let's get one thing clear here: I didn't come up with the definition of God. The definition of God as a necessary and uncreated being has existed for thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands if not more. This idea of God wasn't concocted to make a good argument, it was what theists actually believe, independent of any arguments or definition-wars. So don't bullshit me about this being how I want to define God. What you're saying here- that this is how I want to define God- is verifiably nonsense.

Oh, I see: so basically you think that adding an argument from tradition fallacy to your argument from definition will make it less fallacious.

No, I don't care who came up with the definition: what matters here is that fiat definition is not justification for existence. You can't just say that god is uncreated by definition, and therefore that's okay. You can wrap yourself in definitions as much as you like, but not a one of them will be adequate defense against the simple fact that you've offered no justification for that at all.

Now let's get to cosmological arguments. Arguments are tweaked all the time, purely on the basis of what premises are more or less plausible. You don't need evidence or justification to adjust your premises.

You kinda do, if your new premises are going to suggest the existence of an entire new category of existence (things that do not begin to exist). You also kinda do, if you want to justify the tweak to your premises, rather than have it be, indeed, a dodge to avoid the obvious flaw in your first argument. See, when I formulate an argument and the first premise is shown to be obviously false, I don't look for ways to tweak the argument to get around that, because I'm not bound to this position where the argument just has to be true no matter what. I just make a new argument that's more accurate than the one that's obviously false.

With Kalam, you have an initial argument that isn't based on evidence, and is nothing but invention, and you have a refinement of the argument, which also isn't based on evidence and is nothing but invention... well, where's the reason I should take that seriously? Where, in that pile of unjustified nothings created by theologians with a prior commitment to an ideology, am I supposed to find a signifier of objective reality?

Why should I even consider stuff that people have just made up?

All you need to do is make sure the premise is true, or plausibly true (because you can't be certain about some things) and the premise supports the argument. I imagine your objection is sort of a "gotcha" objection, but that's not quite how it works.

Actually, I don't consider this point an argument against Kalam. The argument against Kalam is that none of the premise are supported by anything even approaching evidence; my point about its development is just a demonstration of how theistic arguments are built and altered to match a presupposition, rather than as observations of reality.

The "begins to exist" thing is a feature of the original Kalam by Al Ghazali, made around 1000 AD. If you're referring to an older cosmological argument that has this gaping hole, I'd love to hear which one it is specifically. Aquinas'? Aristotle's? What's the wording under consideration?

You do understand that there are other, older cosmological arguments than Kalam, right? And that Kalam is a modulation of those older arguments?

And that any cosmological argument without the "begins to exist" language is easily debunked by asking who created god?

An argument from tradition says "X is traditional, therefore x is true."

I'm saying "The definition of God as non-contingent existed long before the arguments. Therefore the definition of God was not invented to support these arguments."

How in the world does the argument from tradition fallacy come into play here? I'm not saying the definition of God is true. I don't think it even matters. You could replace God is any other word you prefer.