• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

leroy

leroy

Well-Known Member
Pogo said:
Can you read? first on the page.

The Kalam Cosmological argument is fundamentally flawed.​

View attachment 94251
Reddit · r/DebateReligion
20+ comments · 2 years ago
Click to expand...

1 it was not the first resoult in my google + how am I suppose to guess that your intent was to provide that source?

2 I find it ironic, that you demand peer reviewed sources, but you provide reedit articles as a source

3 as for your source

Let’s go through each premise one by one. For P1, what exactly is meant by that? P1 is not some logical axiom, it is supposedly an empirical fact. So what is that fact, what, exactly does “begin to exist” mean and how do we know that to do that you need a cause? “Begin to exist” is a loaded term, so to clarify things, let’s apply it to a chair. When did a chair begin to exist? Most would say when it is finished being assembled. A baby began to exist when it came out of the womb, a star began to exist when it started fusing hydrogen into helium, etc. The important thing to note is that none of these are acts of creation, they are acts of state change. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The mass of a chair all assembled is the same as it is when it is just a bunch of pieces from IKEA. A star doesn’t suddenly appear out of thin air, there was a proto star before it and there will be a white dwarf/neutron star/black hole after it (though it will blow most of its mass and energy into space). In our universe, nothing is ever created out of nothing (barring quantum weirdness and I will get to that) things are just moved around and change state. So to rephrase the first premise, “Everything that goes through a state change has a cause.” That is an inductive fact, I’m happy to grant that. Things don’t go from water to ice or back to water without some cause attached.

That in red is a straw man…………the one who makes the argument is the one who “decides” what he means with each word…………….it is not honest to simply change the definition of words at your will so that you can get a premise with implications that you like

If you want to know what “begins to exists” means in this context, you must ask the guy who is making the argument, you don’t get to twist the definitions to your convenience…………………all words have many definitions, why not using the actual definition provided by the person that made the argument, rather than neat picking your favorite and more convenient definition?


Once you admit that the author of the post is making a dishonest star man I will continue reading the rest in search for other flaws
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
mikkel_the_dane said:
The only thing you can know as true, is that when you doubt, it is true that you doubt.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute. Didn't he say he thinks therefore he is? "I think, therefore I am." So if he didn't think he wouldn't be I suppose. But again do you know if he had access to a Bible he could read?
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
YoursTrue said:
Wait a minute. Didn't he say he thinks therefore he is? "I think, therefore I am." So if he didn't think he wouldn't be I suppose. But again do you know if he had access to a Bible he could read?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that the screen you believe you reading this on is really there. The evil demon could be tricking you and you are dreaming reality.
How do you know beyound that you are thinking that your experiences are real?
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that the screen you believe you reading this on is really there. The evil demon could be tricking you and you are dreaming reality.
How do you know beyound that you are thinking that your experiences are real?
Click to expand...
Ok gotcha meaning your explanation. If you reason that way, i.e. that maybe the screen I'm typing into isn't really there, it's probably time to say "so long, take care...been good to know ya..."
 
Pogo

Pogo

Well-Known Member
leroy said:
1 it was not the first resoult in my google + how am I suppose to guess that your intent was to provide that source?

2 I find it ironic, that you demand peer reviewed sources, but you provide reedit articles as a source

3 as for your source

Let’s go through each premise one by one. For P1, what exactly is meant by that? P1 is not some logical axiom, it is supposedly an empirical fact. So what is that fact, what, exactly does “begin to exist” mean and how do we know that to do that you need a cause? “Begin to exist” is a loaded term, so to clarify things, let’s apply it to a chair. When did a chair begin to exist? Most would say when it is finished being assembled. A baby began to exist when it came out of the womb, a star began to exist when it started fusing hydrogen into helium, etc. The important thing to note is that none of these are acts of creation, they are acts of state change. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. The mass of a chair all assembled is the same as it is when it is just a bunch of pieces from IKEA. A star doesn’t suddenly appear out of thin air, there was a proto star before it and there will be a white dwarf/neutron star/black hole after it (though it will blow most of its mass and energy into space). In our universe, nothing is ever created out of nothing (barring quantum weirdness and I will get to that) things are just moved around and change state. So to rephrase the first premise, “Everything that goes through a state change has a cause.” That is an inductive fact, I’m happy to grant that. Things don’t go from water to ice or back to water without some cause attached.

That in red is a straw man…………the one who makes the argument is the one who “decides” what he means with each word…………….it is not honest to simply change the definition of words at your will so that you can get a premise with implications that you like

If you want to know what “begins to exists” means in this context, you must ask the guy who is making the argument, you don’t get to twist the definitions to your convenience…………………all words have many definitions, why not using the actual definition provided by the person that made the argument, rather than neat picking your favorite and more convenient definition?


Once you admit that the author of the post is making a dishonest star man I will continue reading the rest in search for other flaws
Click to expand...
Just because you have a picture of Santa in your book doesn't mean he exists, and just because WLC made an argument doesn't mean it is a good one, you can nitpick individual sentences as you often do with your idiosyncratic vocabulary, but the end is still that Kalam is a failed argument whether you regurgitate it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top