Stump the Christian?

[abaris]

Therefore, I ask again: On what basis can you say with certainty what the theist has or has not personally experienced of God?

On the same basis I can rule out anyone had personal experiences with fairies or unicorns. Special claims demand for special evidence.

[Randy Carson]

You wouldn't. No one would.

And yet, many people, atheists included (highlighted for emphasis), continue to consider what is proposed by theism and find that it is reasonable.

How is that trickery?

Are there that many fools on the planet in the course of history and only a few intelligentsia who broke free?

Indoctrination is powerful stuff... and the unfalsifiable nature of the claim make people stick to it... once hooked, it becomes problematic to think about it as just a man-made concept.
Think back to how you got hooked. Did anyone show you a god? Did anyone do any apologetics?

Brainwashing is almost like washing clothes with bleach - easy to get the stains out, but not so easy to get the color back on.

Remember, Randy, half the population has an IQ below 100.
Nowadays, in the US, an IQ of 100 is a bit low, wouldn't you say?... still, half of americans stand down there. So yes, there are that many fools.
Educations is one thing that can make the non-fools think... but it's clearly not enough.

Existing atheists need not be aware of the multiple pitfalls of their own psychology.
Heck, even psychologists fail to their own psychology! It was a psychologist that said that they can apply all the theory to other people, but never to themselves... or.. well... I don't like the word "never" in this context... I'd say that they can seldom apply it successfully to themselves.

In the end, all I see are people, believers and non-believers... regardless of the existence of any god, their bickering goes on... If it happens regardless of the existence of any god, then why believe? Why assume that such an entity exists?
Because others believe it?
Because you don't have all the answers to the world, as you would like?
Because death scares the shit out of you and you feel better knowing (actually believing) that your essence will go on indefinitely, even knowing full well that your body will die, decay, rot and be dispersed into the wind?
Because your momma tells you so?

Tell me, what other reason is there for people to cling to belief in a god?

You speak about God like a confirmed bachelor might speak about marriage. You have no use for women. You want nothing to do with them. You prefer the company of your mates, the camaraderie of sports and fishing, and women mean nothing more to you than the punch lines of an endless stream of jokes. And of course, you resist the attempts of your friends to introduce you to anyone, and you heap scorn upon them as they fall one by one into wedded bliss. No, you're sworn to be single until the day you die.

And then you see her.

Laugh on, Benedick. You do not yet know the love of Beatrice.

[Randy Carson]

Do you guys will ever cut with the bullshit and teach us a way to find your god?

This is the way:

Matthew 7:7-12
7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"

[Longhorn]

Okay. I've read all the threads, and while I'm no expert, nothing jumped out at me as being the definitive fatal blow to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Since I obviously missed it, would you be so kind as to give me the exact post or the exact argument itself which you feel does strike such a blow?

Thanks.

Sure.

---

The problems with Kalam CA go deeper than just whether the premises are true or not.

Kalam CA is guilty of several fallacies that invalidate it.

The first is the fallacy of equivocation. It equivocates on the meaning of the phrase 'begins to exist'.

In P1, the phrase 'begins to exist' refer to objects within the universe that are a rearrangement of existing energy and matter. Trees, people, tables, etc begin to exist under this definition. This is creation ex materia.

In P2, the phrase 'begins to exist' refers to creation out of nothing. In other words, the deity created all matter and energy out of nothing. This is creation ex nihilo.

If Kalam is rewritten using the different definitions, the fallacy becomes obvious. (to borrow from IronChariots,org)

1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.)
2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

In other words:

1. Every X has a cause.
2. The universe Y.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

As you can see, once the equivocation is made plain, the argument is invalid.

Kalam also contains the fallacy of composition.

P1 refers to 'everything' that we have ever observed, which is the set of every 'thing' withing the universe. P2 refers to the universe itself, which is not part of the set of every 'thing' as defined in P1. A set can't be a member of itself.

Just because the parts have certain properties, does not mean the whole has the same properties.

In other words, Kalam CA is saying something as idiotic as, "Atoms are not visible to the naked eye. Humans are made up of atoms. Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye

I would just like to add that there is a logical problem with assuming that the laws of the universe apply to the universe itself. Our universe can be described as the 'set of all things within our space/time continuum, including space and time'. A wall made of indestructible bricks isn't necessarily an indestructible wall. A universe that is a closed system where entropy holds may not itself be entirely subject to entropy. For instance, a bang/crunch cycle could apply that 'resets' the entropy to a lower level. I don't particularly think that is the case, but it isn't disproven by an appeal to thermodynamics.

Right. Our current understanding of entropy, space, and all of physics for that matter, is entirely restricted to the universe post t=0, as that is the time period in which we live. We can't make any assertions about what happened prior to t=0, as we have no reason to think our understanding of time and space and causality have any relevance there. We can't look at the universe 'from the outside' or 'before it started' because that doesn't make any sense, and we have no way of measuring 'outside the universe' or 'before it started'.

You hit upon the major fallacy that destroys the modus ponens of Kalam's (or any variant) Cosmological argument.

There is a big fat fallacy of equivocation in it. It equivocates the meaning of the phrase 'begins to exist'.

The first definition in P1 refers to creation ex-material, or in other words, rearrangement of existing matter/energy.

The second definition in P2 refers to creation ex-nihilo, or creation out of nothing.

There is also an equally bad fallacy of composition, in that it claims that since a part of the whole requires a cause, it also applies to the whole.

I still can't believe that so many theists think that the CA is such a strong argument.

---

Kalam is poorly and dishonestly worded, fallacious and based on terrible logic. If after reading all of the above and my and Esquilax's responses in this thread you still think it's a legitimate argument, you must be wilfully blind.

[Randy Carson]

Okay. I've read all the threads, and while I'm no expert, nothing jumped out at me as being the definitive fatal blow to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Since I obviously missed it, would you be so kind as to give me the exact post or the exact argument itself which you feel does strike such a blow?

Thanks.

Sure.

---

The problems with Kalam CA go deeper than just whether the premises are true or not.

Kalam CA is guilty of several fallacies that invalidate it.

The first is  the fallacy of equivocation. It equivocates on the meaning of the phrase 'begins to exist'.

In P1, the phrase 'begins to exist' refer to objects within the universe that are a rearrangement of existing energy and matter. Trees, people, tables, etc begin to exist under this definition. This is creation ex materia.

In P2, the phrase 'begins to exist' refers to creation out of nothing. In other words, the deity created all matter and energy out of nothing. This is creation ex nihilo.

If Kalam is rewritten using the different definitions, the fallacy becomes obvious. (to borrow from IronChariots,org)

1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.)
2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

In other words:

1. Every X has a cause.
2. The universe Y.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

As you can see, once the equivocation is made plain, the argument is invalid.

Kalam also contains the fallacy of composition.

P1 refers to 'everything' that we have ever observed, which is the set of every 'thing' withing the universe. P2 refers to the universe itself, which is not part of the set of every 'thing' as defined in P1. A set can't be a member of itself.

Just because the parts have certain properties, does not mean the whole has the same properties.

In other words, Kalam CA is saying something as idiotic as, "Atoms are not visible to the naked eye. Humans are made up of atoms. Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye

I would just like to add that there is a logical problem with assuming that the laws of the universe apply to the universe itself. Our universe can be described as the 'set of all things within our space/time continuum, including space and time'. A wall made of indestructible bricks isn't necessarily an indestructible wall. A universe that is a closed system where entropy holds may not itself be entirely subject to entropy. For instance, a bang/crunch cycle could apply that 'resets' the entropy to a lower level. I don't particularly think that is the case, but it isn't disproven by an appeal to thermodynamics.

Right.  Our current understanding of entropy, space, and all of physics for that matter, is entirely restricted to the universe post t=0, as that is the time period in which we live.  We can't make any assertions about what happened prior to t=0, as we have no reason to think our understanding of time and space and causality have any relevance there.  We can't look at the universe 'from the outside' or 'before it started' because that doesn't make any sense, and we have no way of measuring 'outside the universe' or 'before it started'.

You hit upon the major fallacy that destroys the modus ponens of Kalam's (or any variant) Cosmological argument.

There is a big fat fallacy of equivocation in it. It equivocates the meaning of the phrase 'begins to exist'.

The first definition in P1 refers to creation ex-material, or in other words, rearrangement of existing matter/energy.

The second definition in P2  refers to creation ex-nihilo, or creation out of nothing.

There is also an equally bad fallacy of  composition, in that it claims that since a part of the whole requires a cause, it also applies to the whole.

I still can't believe that so many theists think that the CA is such a strong argument.

---

Kalam is poorly and dishonestly worded, fallacious and based on terrible logic. If after reading all of the above and my and Esquilax's responses in this thread you still think it's a legitimate argument, you must be wilfully blind.

Ah...when I saw Simon Moon's post, I thought that must be who you were parroting.

And I dealt with those objections, didn't I?

No, the threads you gave me left me with the impression that in quiet discussions amongst yourselves (with no apparent theists around to close ranks around), a lot of you were still scratching your heads over how to deal with the KCA. I'm not sure you have even come to any definitive conclusions about whether the universe has always existed or not.

All Simon did was to re-define the terms to his own liking, and then demolish the straw man he created.

Pre-existing material? Pre-existing before what? And what was the cause of this pre-existing material coming into being?

[pocaracas]

Indoctrination is powerful stuff... and the unfalsifiable nature of the claim make people stick to it... once hooked, it becomes problematic to think about it as just a man-made concept.
Think back to how you got hooked. Did anyone show you a god? Did anyone do any apologetics?

Brainwashing is almost like washing clothes with bleach - easy to get the stains out, but not so easy to get the color back on.

Remember, Randy, half the population has an IQ below 100.
Nowadays, in the US, an IQ of 100 is a bit low, wouldn't you say?... still, half of americans stand down there. So yes, there are that many fools.
Educations is one thing that can make the non-fools think... but it's clearly not enough.

Existing atheists need not be aware of the multiple pitfalls of their own psychology.
Heck, even psychologists fail to their own psychology! It was a psychologist that said that they can apply all the theory to other people, but never to themselves... or.. well... I don't like the word "never" in this context... I'd say that they can seldom apply it successfully to themselves.

In the end, all I see are people, believers and non-believers... regardless of the existence of any god, their bickering goes on... If it happens regardless of the existence of any god, then why believe? Why assume that such an entity exists?
Because others believe it?
Because you don't have all the answers to the world, as you would like?
Because death scares the shit out of you and you feel better knowing (actually believing) that your essence will go on indefinitely, even knowing full well that your body will die, decay, rot and be dispersed into the wind?
Because your momma tells you so?

Tell me, what other reason is there for people to cling to belief in a god?

You speak about God like a confirmed bachelor might speak about marriage. You have no use for women. You want nothing to do with them. You prefer the company of your mates, the camaraderie of sports and fishing, and women mean nothing more to you than the punch lines of an endless stream of jokes. And of course, you resist the attempts of your friends to introduce you to anyone, and you heap scorn upon them as they fall one by one into wedded bliss. No, you're sworn to be single until the day you die.

And then you see her.

Laugh on, Benedick. You do not yet know the love of Beatrice.

What's the matter? run out of smart things to say?
I didn't speak about god... I spoke about people's beliefs in god(s). 2 different and not necessarily overlapping things.

[Randy Carson]

So, despite the fact that I very specifically quoted areas of the paper demonstrating that it does not point to a beginning of all universes, period, just a beginning to our current expansion model, despite the fact that actually, the scientific consensus tends to agree with me, that we aren't equipped to properly measure beyond that point yet, you're still going to insist, on the basis of Youtube apologists and a scientific paper that has been demonstrated not to say what you think it says, that actually the science says something totally opposite to that?

Based upon your understanding of the best science currently available, did the universe have a beginning or not?

[Longhorn]

Ah...when I saw Simon Moon's post, I thought that must be who you were parroting.

And I dealt with those objections, didn't I?

No, the threads you gave me left me with the impression that in quiet discussions amongst yourselves (with no apparent theists around to close ranks around), a lot of you were still scratching your heads over how to deal with the KCA. I'm not sure you have even come to any definitive conclusions about whether the universe has always existed or not.

Parroting? Not exactly, as you may or may not be aware, what he posted is an accurate refutation of Kalam, which is you know, the same regardless of who's presenting it.

No, you didn't. You outright dismissed the idea that Kalam is special pleading, continued to disregard the difference between the two meanings of 'beginning to exist', didn't even address the composition fallacy by stating that Kalam was not trying to prove the universe has a cause (when it obviously is. Cosmological argument, remember?), continued to ignore the fact that we simply cannot comprehend what was 'before' the universe and in response to Esq you just said you don't know enough to debate it. You also refused to see the god of the gaps in your reasoning and made a weak attempt to tu quoque abaris who clearly said he was fine with saying 'I don't know' by saying atheists are using 'science of the gaps'.

No, Randy. You didn't address shit. And until you do, I'm done wasting time on your dishonest tactics.

[Randy Carson]

You speak about God like a confirmed bachelor might speak about marriage. You have no use for women. You want nothing to do with them. You prefer the company of your mates, the camaraderie of sports and fishing, and women mean nothing more to you than the punch lines of an endless stream of jokes. And of course, you resist the attempts of your friends to introduce you to anyone, and you heap scorn upon them as they fall one by one into wedded bliss. No, you're sworn to be single until the day you die.

And then you see her.

Laugh on, Benedick. You do not yet know the love of Beatrice.

What's the matter? run out of smart things to say?
I didn't speak about god... I spoke about people's beliefs in god(s). 2 different and not necessarily overlapping things.

And I spoke of the bachelor's belief in love and marriage...things that must be experienced.

Apparently, you do not realize how well I spoke.

[Longhorn]

So, despite the fact that I very specifically quoted areas of the paper demonstrating that it does not point to a beginning of all universes, period, just a beginning to our current expansion model, despite the fact that actually, the scientific consensus tends to agree with me, that we aren't equipped to properly measure beyond that point yet, you're still going to insist, on the basis of Youtube apologists and a scientific paper that has been demonstrated not to say what you think it says, that actually the science says something totally opposite to that?

Based upon your understanding of the best science currently available, did the universe have a beginning or not?

We don't know. Therefore Zeus. Checkmate, atheist scum!!

Just....don't. It's getting painful.