Question 1:
Is the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) a successful argument? Why or why not?
Question 2:
Should I try to do another debate on the KCA?(the two I had were not really real debates)
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Topic's posts
Posts in total:
29
-
-
The KAC IS a good argument -
Why can't the universe be infinitely old? -
I find the KCA to not only be invalid, but unsound. -
--> @Dr.FranklinThe KAC.Or did you mean CACK?Hey....If I talk bulls**t for long enough will you believe in nonsense Homer.....D'oh.
-
--> @zedvictor4what in the world
-
--> @Dr.FranklinSorry....I was forgetting that you were Guadeloupean.
-
--> @Jarrett_LudolphQuantum mechanics shows that the notion of causality can no longer be considered validper the Copenhagen Interpretation.
-
The child mortality rate in the United States, for children under the age of five, was 462.9 deaths per thousand births in 1800.That is almost 50 percent. It looks like our Creator didn't have a PGE license (Professional God Engineering).
-
--> @Jarrett_LudolphEven taken in it's least assumptious state:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.There is no deductive reason to believe that that cause is an agent, as an agent is something which either exists or it doesn't exist, if there is no evidence to provide demonstration it is there, there is no reasonable reason to believe it is. In other words, all agency must be demonstrated as such, else there is no reason to believe that they exist. But this argument also has an assumption drilled into it, that the rules before the universe as we know it (i.e, pre-big bang and all) operates on the same rules as it does now.This is an assumption.From there you would have to demonstrate that something could never come from nothing, and we have no reason to believe that is true in the pre-big bang era. Those are some of my basic problems with the KCA, but i have even more problems with it's form that is often cited much more often in the realm of trying to prove god. Which has god as a necessary part of it for some arbitrary reason or another. None of these reasons are given deductive conclusions, they are just inserted so that the god that the argument supposedly proves fits their own.As for a debate? Sure. I'd be open to having one, I don't think you would get very far with it, but that's just my opinion. -
--> @zedvictor4ok.
-
--> @Theweakeredgethat the rules before the universe as we know it (i.e, pre-big bang and all) operates on the same rules as it does now.Agree i.e ex, the sum of the angles of a Euclidean triangle are always the sum of the three angles, irrespective of the mathematical enumeration used in base unity. Base unity is 360 degree commonly, but is something other in some circumstances.Another example than even in any "pre-big bang" era/eon, there can never ever exist more than five convex polyhedral.From there you would have to demonstrate that something could never come from nothing, and we have no reason to believe that is true in the pre-big bang era.So true so true i.e. any espousal of a occupied space arising from where before, there was only, a truly non-occupied space, are not using rather simple, rational, logical, common sense.And tho you dont reference them, let me be clear on a little bit more;1} eternity is to time as infinite is to space, i.e those who keep referencing time to infinity are doing so mistakenly, ---just a small issue, yet a truth they may want to understand better--,2} finite = systemic and structural integrity --see definition of for integrity involves 'wholeness'...., and,3} infinite = the anti-thesis of 'wholeness', ergo lacks systemic and structural integrity ergo exists in only two formats;..........3a} Metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concepts of infinite this or that, ex infinite set of integers of Pi is a concept, not any infinite set of numbers written out in the sky, books, digital or Universe,...........3b} Macro-infinte, truly non-occupied space, that embraces/surrounds the finite, occupied space Universe.None have ever offered any rational, logical common sense --much less truth or fact evidence-- that in anyway invalidates the above. Only a few have made a small effort and failed.Note: Bucky Fuller did allow for the possibility of infinite ergo eternal subdivision of macro-finite Universe. I however disagree with that assessment, and give the following rational why.If we took 99.99999999% of Universe energy -- a finite amount--- to create a smaller and smaller Graviton --quantum of Gravity--, we will reach a limit { finite } of micro-quantum event. And as a resultatnt aside to that scenario, humans may think, well perhaps if there is a finite quantum limit of Gravity ----this may include Dark Energy?-- then,can we have places of tuly non-occupied space with in Universe appearing? I say no, because the structural systems of Gravitons of any size are overlapping each other. How is that possible that two gravitons can overlap? Others would have to venture into the my torodial, mathematical scenarios, to grasp overlapping Gravitons and overlapping Darkions.These two are intimately connected as if two sides of the same coin. I came to this understanding via my explorations of prime numbers, in search of prime number pattern. -
If there is existence, there must be an Ultimate Reality that precedes existence.The universe is temporal. Before time even, there would have had to have been an Ultimate Reality.Even if the universe has always existed temporally, God is pre-eternal. That is, existing before time. Before, not in a temporal sense, but in being necessary for time to exist.The best argument for God is recognizing what God is rather than trying to arrive to a conclusion of God through reason. If God is recognized as The Ultimate Reality, it is irrational to require reason or evidence to validate God.The fact that anything exists at all is proof of God. Your experience scientifically proves that there is some form of existence. If existence as you perceive it exists, then existence as it truly is by necessity must exist. Even if you are a naive realist who takes existence as you perceive it as being existence as it truly is, the fact isn't changed.Reality in the truest sense is God. -
--> @TheweakeredgeI'm against the KCA, so I will not be debating you if I have another one. (but thank you for the offer)
-
--> @FLRWThat is almost 50 percent. It looks like our Creator didn't have a PGE license (Professional God Engineering).I wonder what God's pre-creation purpose was before it became wet nurse to man?Has God gotten His PGE license yet from His creation? I just got off in court because the judge had not gotten his PJE license (Professional Judge Engineering) from me! -
--> @MopacThe fact that anything exists is proof of something....Call it what you will....Fluffykins or ultimate reality or big BOOM.As, no one actually knows why, and names are something that we make up.
-
--> @zedvictor4Meaning is arbitrary to the nihilist. Statements are simply a fill in the blank game.The fact that you are having an experience at all is proof that there is some form of reality. If there is some form of reality, reality as it truly is must exist. The Ultimate Reality is reality as it truly is. That is what we call God.And that is why if you deny God, you are delusional.
-
--> @MopacThe fact that you are having an experience at all is proof that there is some form of reality. If there is some form of reality, reality as it truly is must exist. The Ultimate Reality is reality as it truly is. That is what we call God.And that is why if you deny God, you are delusional.Is that from the movie, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?
-
--> @FLRWIt is certainly an idiotic and insane position to deny ultimate reality.Nihilism is a self defeating position.
-
--> @MopacNope. I've never denied a GOD principle.And I agree in the main with what you say.And I'm aware that you also refer to the ultimate reality as GOD.The difference is that theists have been are taught to humanise the GOD principle, whereas atheists have not.
-
--> @zedvictor4What do you mean by humanizing the God principle?
-
--> @Mopac"HIS HIM HE"
-
--> @MopacUltimate RealityPhyiscal reality is what we experience and quantize ergo Observed Time and is associated with the sine-wave /\/\/\/ pattern aka fermions and bosons.What underlies---actually more correctly identified as, what overlies physical/reality is;1} Metaphysical-3 geodesic, positively curved Gravity ( ) and,2} Metapysical-4, geodesic, negatively curved Dark Energy )(..............................Space( * ) i ( * )Space..................................( ) = outer surface of torus ---an occupied space---)( = inner surface of torus---and occupied spaei = Metpahysical-1 ego via mind/inllect/concepts ---beyond { meta-space }Space i.e. concepts of space and not occupied or non-occupied space--* * = physical reality of biological consciousness { our soul/heart/brain etc}.......non-occupied space......................( reality ) non-occupied space ( reality )..............non-occupied space..............................non-occupied space..........( /\/\/ ) non-occupied space (/\/ )...........non-occupied space.......................Because our finite, occupied space is composed of many tori, they overlap an interfere ergo, the space seen between two inner negative surfaces of one tori, is most likely filled by other tori's surface events or the reality inside each toroidal tube..."what we have is, interfering and non-interfering pattterns operating in pure principle"...B Fuller.." what exists is moderations or modification of angle and frequency"....B Fuller/\/\/\/\/\/\/*\/* hi, I'm the monkey wrench cause of fluctuationin the quantum wave and my name is Tom/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\*/\*/ I'm Tulip, Toms sister
-
--> @zedvictor4Our faith is relationship with God. We relate to God in persons.That isn't to say that The Ultimate Reality is male or female.We at the same time use expressions like "God's right hand", and "the eyes of The Lord", or "The Lord's footstool".We are not confusing divine and human natures. We aren't saying that The Ultimate Reality has hands, eyes, feet, lungs, etc. This is simply the language we use in relating to God as persons.I recall a teacher of the faith, though I can't remember who, saying something to the effect that we orthodox have a very poetic way of looking at things.
-
--> @Jarrett_LudolphQuestion 1:Is the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) a successful argument? Why or why not?What is a succesful argument?An argument that is convincing to one is not to another.Using reason to do things like "prove" God is not really the how we think in orthodoxy. It is actually this type of thinking that is characteristic of post schism Roman Catholicism. Very much a scholastic way of doing things.Contrast scholasticism with hesychasm.Scholasticism is about proper education, having the right education, an a reliance on reason to see God.Hesychasm is about examining the things that have influence over us, motivate us, and pollute us. It is about purifying the heart and nous.Scholasticism looks outside the self.Hesychasm looks within the self.Very different ways of going about things.
