StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login   Register FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-10-30 08:58am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » Science, Logic, And Morality


Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)

Kalam cosmological argument

Moderators: SirNitram, SCRawl, Thanas, D.Turtle, PeZook

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 2 of 2
 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

Serafina
PostPosted: 2012-03-09 10:38am 

Sith Acolyte


Joined: 2009-01-07 06:37pm
Posts: 5226
Location: Germany
You don't get what i am saying: The Kalam cosmological argument* is designed to fool people into believing in a first mover, by dishonestly not presenting the whole picture.
Channel72 wrote:
For those unfamiliar with Craig's arguments, he specifically cites Big Bang theory as validating his premise that the Universe has a beginning. So Craig is not committing any form of special pleading when he says the Universe requires an external cause. All he's saying is that some things require an external cause, some things don't - and science proves the Universe is among the set of things which require an external cause.
Ah, so he's either a fool or a blatant liar. Because the Big Bang proves no such thing, and i already demonstrated it. To reiterate for those too stupid to read:
The Big Bang is actually NOT the beginning of the universe. Beginning implies a linear passage of time, and due to being a massive singularity the universe before the Big Bang was not subjected to the passage of time. The Singularity from which the Big Bang originated did by definition not have a beginning, since it sat there for all eternity (not difficult if no time passes).

So here is your attack on your premise: You are blatantly wrong about the thing you are arguing about.


*As usually presented, including in this instance. Of course you can actually state premise 0 - that doesn't increase the arguments validity, but you're not a lying jackass if you do so.
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2012-03-09 01:16pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
Channel72 wrote:
No, God is not "defined" at all. Up until Premise 4 (which I happily concede is an egregious leap in logic), the cosmological argument is only concerned with establishing that the Universe requires an external cause. Given the premises, the argument successfully demonstrates that the Universe requires an external cause. It's only because the premises themselves are factually inaccurate that the argument fails.
What the fuck is your malfunction? I know full well that "god" is not defined in the Kalam argument, I am speaking of how theists define God external to the argument and infer that "god" is therefore the cause of the universe.
   Profile |  

Marko Dash
PostPosted: 2012-03-09 09:18pm 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2006-01-29 04:42am
Posts: 531
Location: south carolina, USA
could not the singularity before the big bang be the accumulated mass of a previous universe? IIRC current theory is towards a constant expansion of the current universe rather than a big crunch, but maybe this time the bang was just slightly more energetic?
   Profile |  

Terralthra
PostPosted: 2012-03-10 01:54am 

Sith Marauder


Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Posts: 3718
Location: San Francisco, California, United States
Setting up the premises of your arguments such that they include unverified (or unverifiable) distinctions between phenomena and then basing your argument on said distinctions is still special pleading.

The idea that the universe began with the Big Bang is hypothetical at best. We have no evidence that the universe began then, we simply know that our conception of time originated then. We can't predict with any accuracy what was "before" the singularity and expansion event, but that doesn't mean there wasn't anything. Allegorically, consider an uninflated balloon. You can't tell with any consistency (with human senses, anyway) whether the balloon just came off the assembly line or whether it has been inflated and deflated a dozen times. That lack of information does not imply that the balloon must have just come into existence.

The premise that God is external to the universe and eternal is simply unverifiable.

Thus, special pleading, still.
   Profile |  

Scepticalguy
PostPosted: 2012-03-17 01:36pm 

Redshirt


Joined: 2012-03-06 08:29am
Posts: 20
Serafina wrote:
You don't get what i am saying: The Kalam cosmological argument* is designed to fool people into believing in a first mover, by dishonestly not presenting the whole picture.
Channel72 wrote:
For those unfamiliar with Craig's arguments, he specifically cites Big Bang theory as validating his premise that the Universe has a beginning. So Craig is not committing any form of special pleading when he says the Universe requires an external cause. All he's saying is that some things require an external cause, some things don't - and science proves the Universe is among the set of things which require an external cause.
Ah, so he's either a fool or a blatant liar. Because the Big Bang proves no such thing, and i already demonstrated it. To reiterate for those too stupid to read:
The Big Bang is actually NOT the beginning of the universe. Beginning implies a linear passage of time, and due to being a massive singularity the universe before the Big Bang was not subjected to the passage of time. The Singularity from which the Big Bang originated did by definition not have a beginning, since it sat there for all eternity (not difficult if no time passes).

So here is your attack on your premise: You are blatantly wrong about the thing you are arguing about.


*As usually presented, including in this instance. Of course you can actually state premise 0 - that doesn't increase the arguments validity, but you're not a lying jackass if you do so.


You should head over to "Reasonable Faith" and start laying waste to the guys over their as they consider the Kalam to be the be all and end all of arguments for God and that William Lane Craig is the finest philosopher in history for using it.
   Profile |  

Serafina
PostPosted: 2012-03-18 09:23am 

Sith Acolyte


Joined: 2009-01-07 06:37pm
Posts: 5226
Location: Germany
So i'm supposed to register at a forum devoted to the works of a single person, and convince it's members that said person is actually wrong on most of his arguments? :lol:

The odds of that working out are, well, nonexistent. I'd have to put an enormous amount of time into it and would, at best, convince a few errand readers who don't hold firmly to that guys superiority anyway.
   Profile |  

Scepticalguy
PostPosted: 2012-03-18 09:36am 

Redshirt


Joined: 2012-03-06 08:29am
Posts: 20
Serafina wrote:
So i'm supposed to register at a forum devoted to the works of a single person, and convince it's members that said person is actually wrong on most of his arguments? :lol:


Actually there are a lot of Atheists over their hammering away at the fanatics.

Quote:
The odds of that working out are, well, nonexistent. I'd have to put an enormous amount of time into it and would, at best, convince a few errand readers who don't hold firmly to that guys superiority anyway.


There have been quite a few successes and regardless to what they admit being exposed to facts, figures, evidence and on many occasions the sheer idiocy of their position on certain things has to have a effect on those who are honest even if its only a small one.

The dishonest already know and are comfortable with the fact they are lying so focusing on them is pointless as you know.

But hey i respect your position and say only that we will miss your clarity and if you change your mind i go by the same name on that forum.
   Profile |  

Rye
PostPosted: 2012-04-26 08:50pm 

To Mega Therion


Joined: 2003-03-08 08:48am
Posts: 12493
Location: Uighur, please!
Kalam is an argument regarding causality.

Causality requires a before and after to determine an effect.

The universe need not have a "before" state, since time is part of the universe.

Therefore it is wrong to say that the universe "began" to exist in a causal manner - it is coterminous with all temporal existence.

Assuming it does, why could it not be a natural universe spring rather than a cultural icon? What distinguishes a natural universe from an intentionally caused one?

Also, you might want to question how intent and intellect can come about sans temporal existence, as that is the only place they make any sort of sense.
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 2 of 2
 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

It is currently 2014-10-30 08:58am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » Science, Logic, And Morality

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group