Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[Clueless Morgan]

When someone says a being exists (call it x) which has the set of properties P, they are not making a claim about the meaning of words.

Aren't they? They, we, are talking about the meaning or definition of what it means to be 'entity X'. You're saying that X has property P as opposed to X with property Q or property R or property S. When discussing what properties are attributable and not attributable to X you are talking about what and how you define X, exactly as FNM points out!

---

define
[dih-fahyn]

verb (used with object), defined, defining.

1.to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.): They disagreed on how to define “liberal.”.

2. to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe:
to define judicial functions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define?s=t

---

I can define myself as entity "AF User" with property "Muppet" but that doesn't mean it's an accurate or true definition of me and I can demonstrate this fact. When it comes to gods, saying they are caused or uncaused is meaningless in the face of the fact that no gods anywhere can be demonstrated to exist at all, let alone a god with the property of "caused" or "uncaused." So what you are doing is asserting a definition, without justification or demonstration, that most suits your position.

They are making a claim about reality, namely "Reality, ie 'the total set of everything that exist,' includes as a member 'entity x with properties P.'"

It also includes all "entity X"s with properties other than P and you have to have justification for choosing X w/P and not X w/Q, X w/R or X w/S or even just "X without property P". You have not and are not doing so, you are simply asserting that it's X w/P and that's that!

[YGninja]

Delicate & Mezmo: Would either of you be willing to elaborate on your position, and why you disagree with the majority of the members posting in this thread? It's not very convincing when you make simplistic one-line claims that are unsubstantiated by well-reasoned arguments. (unlike the rational case presented by those deconstructing the Kalam argument)

Hi, i recommend you avoid learning about theistic arguments from an atheist forum. I also recommend, to avoid getting the wool pulled over your eyes, you read some Christian apologetics, and defenses of these arguments first, such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtfVds8Kn4s

If Christianity is true, then there will ultimately be an anti-Christian agenda, as the whole world will be led against the faith. Hence, alot of people would be heavily invested in trying to convince you to leave Christianity. Keep this in mind when discussing topics with atheists, take their claims with a pinch of salt, look up the Christian rebuttals. The Kalam argument, for one, remains undefeated. Esqi and others tried to debate it in another thread, and ultimately forfeited. http://atheistforums.org/thread-31474-page-12.html. The discussion runs over quite a few pages, you'll see Esqi's position becomes increasingly farcical before he eventually takes his leave.

[Esquilax]

I predicted you would still be stuck on the definition thing, and here you are. Stuck on the definition thing.

I don't see you playing a different song on this one, buddy. I'm not going to bother.

For the rest of the readers out there, this is how you know Esquilax is wrong:
-Definitions are about the meanings of words.
-Metaphysics is about the nature of reality.

If you'd made an argument beyond "god is uncaused by definition" you might have had a point there, but I've yet to see you defend your chosen definition beyond merely asserting it. You gotta put more meat on them bones before you can accuse me of just seeing bones.

When someone says a being exists (call it x) which has the set of properties P, they are not making a claim about the meaning of words. They are making a claim about reality, namely "Reality, ie 'the total set of everything that exist,' includes as a member 'entity x with properties P.'"

This is a claim about reality. The question is, does such an entity exist or not? Does the evidence justify belief in the existence of this entity or not? What is the nature of this entity? All metaphysical questions. Don't be a broken record like our friend Esquilax here.

Claims about reality require evidence, which you've yet to provide beyond quoting a definition.

The Kalam argument, for one, remains undefeated.

For an argument to be undefeated it must first be demonstrated to be true, which you've utterly failed to do. It's not my problem that you're incapable or unwilling to properly read the science, and instead wish to misinterpret it toward your own ends, but your delusions regarding unambiguous reportage do not constitute an argument or justification for Kalam. When you add the sort of bluster you habitually use to that criminal lack of understanding, is it any wonder I opted to simply give up? I'll fight ignorance because that can be rectified, but I won't bother with proud, willful stupidity, because I can't fix the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Esqi and others tried to debate it in another thread, and ultimately forfeited. http://atheistforums.org/thread-31474-page-12.html. The discussion runs over quite a few pages, you'll see Esqi's position becomes increasingly farcical before he eventually takes his leave.

It's good that you're proud of your inability to understand scientific concepts: everyone needs something to be proud of, and I get the feeling that for you there's precious little of that, but a surplus of ignorance.

[The Grand Nudger]

Fairies have wings by definition. Checkmate a-fairy-ists!
God is non-existent by definition. Checkmate theists!
God is uncaused by definition. Checkmate atheists!

[YGninja]

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.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause"? Since when was "cause" a synonym for "god"? And where to you get supernatural and transcendent from that argument? Those are tacked on extras, cards that the person using the argument is trying to palm and hope you don't notice. My suggestion is that you not let yourself be fooled.

So there's that, but there's also the fact that, well, the argument is just plain wrong. You won't find many scientists willing to state that the universe began to exist; what you will hear is that there was a beginning to the expansion of our universe into its current state, where we can't even predict what happened before that because it's totally unlike anything we've ever known. Essentially, it's the point at which our ability to describe reality breaks down, where we'd need an entirely new language to deal with it, and so we don't even have the first clue what goes on beyond that point. Theists like to conflate this idea with the idea of a beginning of the universe, pretending that the subtleties of the science don't exist, but that's simply not a tenable position, and therefore the second premise of Kalam is dead wrong, and the argument dies with it.

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.

In doing so, of course, the argument now makes even more unsupported assertions, like the proposed existence of a category of things that didn't begin to exist... but there are plenty of problems there without needing to get into that one. That's just the terrible cherry on this awful, awful cake.

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.

Just wrong on so many counts.

""Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause"? Since when was "cause" a synonym for "god""

Its not, the properties of the cause are similar/identical to the properties of God, particularly the Abrahamic ones.

"You won't find many scientists willing to state that the universe began to exist"

You will find many, including explicit quotes from the worlds top cosmologists.

"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" - Vilenkin

And no, he's not speaking about merely a beginning to expansion, which Esqi injects for no reason. Scientists also realise that you cannot have an eternally balanced singularity which suddenly, at one point, decides to explode. If it were eternally balanced, as it would have to be, it is never going to explode, so cannot be past-eternal.

"the second premise of Kalam is dead wrong, and the argument dies with it."

- He hasn't even began to show this. "Isn't necessarily true", does not equal "is dead wrong". Everything that begins to exist having a cause, seems most reasonable. We aren't arguing certainties here, only probabilities, the theists believes that things which begin to exist have a cause, the atheist, self-ascribed arbiter of reason is holding out for the incredibly unlikely, never witnessed or even logically coherent notion that something can begin without a cause. If things could begin without a cause, what quality does "nothing" possess, which makes it spawn universes or singularities? Why not bicycles? Cutlery? If something can exist without a cause, why does into come into existence at one moment, rather than always existing?

The rest is just a lazy and irrelevant, desperate attempt at some kind of mutant genetic fallacy.

Like i said, don't take atheist words for anything. If Christianity is right, atheists are dishonest fools. Keep this in mind.

[FatAndFaithless]

That's a pretty big "if" upon which to construct your entire edifice of condescension and caustic superiortiy, YGNinja.

[Faith No More]

This is for the Ninja...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect

[YGninja]

That's a pretty big "if" upon which to construct your entire edifice of condescension and caustic superiortiy, YGNinja.

Just being honest. The only atheists ive ever met who were honest, we're gullible, believed they were atheists merely because of a "lack of belief", and weren't atheist for long. Besides, if an atheist could be honest and genuinely seeking truth, then God would be wrong for treating them differently. Hence if Christianity is true, atheists must not genuinely seek truth.

[FatAndFaithless]

Breathtakingly dishonest.

[YGninja]

Breathtakingly dishonest.

I find it dishonest that you make such a claim without even attempting a refutation.