There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

The Kalam argument does not imply the existence of “God”.

Nowhere in the premises will you find “God” mentioned.

The argument only attempts to infer the existence of an external cause.

Yes, my exact words earlier in the thread, that is, that God is not mentioned. What is mentioned is a cause. What is not mentioned is what the cause was. At this point God enters the argument, as far as Christians are concerned.

I’m sorry but I don’t think you understand the Kalam adequately, and I believe Shad has also pointed some of your other misconceptions concerning the logical form of the argument.

Not the first time you have insinuated that I lack understanding. I am starting to detect an air on contention. Yet I have received a great deal of encouragement and compliments on my theological and scientific knowledge considering my lack of education in those field, so, if you do not mind, I will take the comment with a pinch of salt. Shad is demonstrably wrong on his understanding of the logics of argument, which I have responded to.

 

[Serenity7855]

Are you really that desperate or are you honestly that ignorant?

Neither, however, I am getting pretty good at Google. Should I pass on your remarks to those who are experts in the English language. It is those who you insult, not me. A good retail manager need not know anything about the retail industry, all he has to do is surround himself with experts in the retail industry.

 

[McBell]

Neither, however, I am getting pretty good a Google. Should I pass on your remarks to those who are experts in the English language. It is those who you insult, not me.

Denial.

Well, at least you are consistent.

 

[adi2d]

Are you really that desperate or are you honestly that ignorant?

Both.

 

[cottage]

Yes, my exact words earlier in the thread, that is, that God is not mentioned. What is mentioned is a cause. What is not mentioned is what the cause was. At this point God enters the argument, as far as Christians are concerned.

But the point is that “God” doesn’t enter the argument; the concept doesn’t exist in the premises. You can very well propose the Christian God in accordance with your faith, but it does not and cannot figure in the argument.

Not the first time you have insinuated that I lack understanding. I am starting to detect an air on contention. Yet I have received a great deal of encouragement and compliments on my theological and scientific knowledge considering my lack of education in those field, so, if you do not mind, I will take the comment with a pinch of salt. Shad is demonstrably wrong on his understanding of the logics of argument, which I have responded to.

I’m not disputing your scientific understanding and I certainly wouldn’t presume to question your theological knowledge. But it has to be accepted that we all have our specialised fields and educational backgrounds and it is unwise to blunder into areas that are not familiar while making arguments that are frankly plain wrong or misunderstood. That would be like me very foolishly attempting to teach you the subtleties of Bible literacy.

And Shad is not wrong in what he explained to you. He said: “A valid and sound argument proves itself true. An unsound argument does not prove itself true. This is how logical true arguments work.”

If the premises in an argument are all true then the argument sound. And it is the soundness that makes a proposition true.

A bachelor is an unmarried man
Tom is unmarried
Tom is a batchelor

 

[Serenity7855]

Both.

Ah, where have you been, I have missed you and your spiteful little digs.

 

[adi2d]

But the point is that “God” doesn’t enter the argument; the concept doesn’t exist in the premises. You can very well propose the Christian God in accordance with your faith, but it does not and cannot figure in the argument.





I’m not disputing your scientific understanding and I certainly wouldn’t presume to question your theological knowledge. But it has to be accepted that we all have our specialised fields and educational backgrounds and it is unwise to blunder into areas that are not familiar while making arguments that are frankly plain wrong or misunderstood. That would be like me very foolishly attempting to teach you the subtleties of Bible literacy.

And Shad is not wrong in what he explained to you. He said: “A valid and sound argument proves itself true. An unsound argument does not prove itself true. This is how logical true arguments work.”

If the premises in an argument are all true then the argument sound. And it is the soundness that makes a proposition true.

A bachelor is an unmarried man
Tom is unmarried
Tom is a batchelor

Your example looks good but not sure if true. With a little more information the premise could both be true and conclusion wrong

A bachelor is an unmarried man
Tom is unmarried
Therefore tom is a bachelor

Sounds good but one more premise
Tom is short for thomasina
Therefore. Tom is NOT a bachelor per premise one

 

[cottage]

Notice that all the passages here all share a common theme.

No I disagree, science is about the best possible explanation, which could be fact.

It is certainly the case that a scientific theory is the best explanation.
But “Science” simply means the systematic study of the natural world. A scientific theory is a valid explanation of a phenomenon, following the repeated testing of hypotheses (scientific method). But any fact can be true or false, which includes even a scientific theory that is contingently true but highly probable, the Laws of Motion for example. (Note that in common parlance a “fact” is often mistakenly taken to mean something that is near-certain or beyond refute)

Yet you say that in the future a ball may not move when you kick it, when you said, "But none of those things are demonstrable for they are only as true as the last observation."

Yes, exactly. Why do you think there is a problem with that?

Contingently true is a contradiction as contingent mean something not yet certain; conditional, so how can it be true.

A contingent truth stands in opposition to a necessary truth. “The sun rises in the morning” is a contingent truth. “All bachelors are unmarried men” and 2 + 2 = 4 are necessary truths. So in other words, a contingent truth means X can be false (as with all facts), whereas a necessary truth is true in all possible worlds.

But surely the sun rising is defined by a tautological happenstance. It is more likely then not. The probability of the sun not rising tomorrow is so low that it is negligible and unworthy of consideration. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow as much as I have faith in God. It is as close to a fact as it could be. To say that the ball, may not move when kicked in the future is saying that naturalistic laws have been compromised along with all of the implications of a failed universal law. It is just not worthy of consideration and has no evidence to remotely substantiate it.

To be honest I expected a simplistic response, because as Bertrand Russell says, “the Problem of Induction is a very difficult subject” and indeed it is quite impossible to do it justice in a single passage, except in a very simple way, which is what I’ve tried to do here.

Now of course we expect to see the sun rise in the morning. And why do we believe that? We naively believe the sun will rise every morning because, as far as we can know, it has risen every morning in the past. But there is nothing in that belief other than a familiarity that informs us that the rising of the sun every past morning gives us the expectation that the sun will rise on future mornings. When asked why the sun must continue to rise, the only answer we can give is to say that it has done so regularly in past experience. But no argument from the past can be an argument to the future; and we are at a loss to explain what Hume called “the secret springs” that bring about the effects; we cannot identify any necessary reason why it should be thus and not otherwise. And interestingly, according to David Hume past events cannot even be considered probable (which is contrary to the general scientific principle mentioned up the page) because that requires the assumption that the past predicts the future. And indeed we can all think of scientific predictions have been proven false. But the essential point is that the world is finite and contingent and thus it cannot be said that the world is eternal and necessary. So “The contingent, finite world will end”, can never imply a contradiction, and therefore the statement “the sun will rise every morning in the future” is a habit arrived at purely by custom since it has no element of deductive reasoning from necessarily true premises. So it seems that Hume was onto something. To round this off I’ll end with a famous quote by Hume that sums up the controversy quite nicely: “Whatever is may not be”.

How do you conclude that God was dependant upon a contingent principle. God is Alpha and Omega. He does work within contingents. He only does certainties, whether now or in the future. That being the case, your summation is counter intuitive.

This is a highly compressed version of the argument. The world is finite and contingent; it doesn’t have to exist. By comparison God is said to be the Necessary Being, eternal and with no logical possibility of non-existence. But if God created (caused) the world (the effect) then he did so using a contingent principle, and clearly it can’t be said that he created a contingent principle in order to bring the world into being because that would mean he would still need a contingent principle to create the contingent principle (causality). Therefore the necessary being would be contingent upon a contingent principle, which is evidently absurd and logically impossible. The conclusion, therefore, is that no necessary being created the contingent world.

 

[Serenity7855]

But the point is that “God” doesn’t enter the argument; the concept doesn’t exist in the premises. You can very well propose the Christian God in accordance with your faith, but it does not and cannot figure in the argument.

I have said that God does not enter the argument and I have said that I propose God as the cause. You are telling me what I already know.

I’m not disputing your scientific understanding and I certainly wouldn’t presume to question your theological knowledge. But it has to be accepted that we all have our specialised fields and educational backgrounds and it is unwise to blunder into areas that are not familiar while making arguments that are frankly plain wrong or misunderstood. That would be like me very foolishly attempting to teach you the subtleties of Bible literacy.

I disagree, if I am wrong I see it as a blessing because I will never be wrong on that point again. I have gained knowledge. It is a win win situation for me.

And Shad is not wrong in what he explained to you. He said: “A valid and sound argument proves itself true. An unsound argument does not prove itself true. This is how logical true arguments work.”

An argument is a means by which evidence is presented in situations like debates, it is the evidence that proves the argument and not the argument itself. Kalams argument cannot prove itself as there is no evidence just metaphysical reasoning.

If the premises in an argument are all true then the argument sound. And it is the soundness that makes a proposition true.

A bachelor is an unmarried man
Tom is unmarried
Tom is a batchelor

A bachelor is an unmarried man.
We have checked the records and Tom is definitely unmarried
Tom is a bachelor

The argument is validated with evidence so the evidence proves the argument. In your version all we have is hearsay so the argument is without evidence and the argument is unproved.

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause - the evidence can be found by cause and effect
2. The universe began to exist - the evidence can be found by using the standard cosmological model
C. The universe had a cause - the conclusion follows the evidence presented in the argument or the first two premises.

 

[cottage]

Your example looks good but not sure if true. With a little more information the premise could both be true and conclusion wrong

A bachelor is an unmarried man
Tom is unmarried
Therefore tom is a bachelor

Sounds good but one more premise
Tom is short for thomasina
Therefore. Tom is NOT a bachelor per premise one

Indeed if that were the case, but there is no additional premise.

Nevertheless I'll make it specific and unambiguous for you

A bachelor is an unmarried man
Thomas is an unmarried man
Thomas is a bachelor

Howzat?

 

[adi2d]

Indeed if that were the case, but there is no additional premise.

Nevertheless I'll make it specific and unambiguous for you

A bachelor is an unmarried man
Thomas is an unmarried man
Thomas is a bachelor

Howzat?

That is perfect.

Now about your assertion that there is no other premise. Omniscient?.....

 

[cottage]

I have said that God does not enter the argument and I have said that I propose God as the cause. You are telling me what I already know.

I disagree, if I am wrong I see it as a blessing because I will never be wrong on that point again. I have gained knowledge. It is a win win situation for me.

Okay then.

An argument is a means by which evidence is presented in situations like debates, it is the evidence that proves the argument and not the argument itself. Kalams argument cannot prove itself as there is no evidence just metaphysical reasoning.

Then may I ask what is it you are disputing?

A bachelor is an unmarried man.
We have checked the records and Tom is definitely unmarried
Tom is a bachelor

The argument is validated with evidence so the evidence proves the argument. In your version all we have is hearsay so the argument is without evidence and the argument is unproved.

There doesn't have to be any "Tom" for the argument to be true, anymore than there has to be any triangles in the world in order to validate the truth that a triangle is the sum of its three angles.

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause - the evidence can be found by cause and effect
2. The universe began to exist - the evidence can be found by using the standard cosmological model
C. The universe had a cause - the conclusion follows the evidence presented in the argument or the first two premises.

But the primary premise is falsely inferred! Therefore it isn't valid and the argument is not sound.


P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2. The universe began to exist
C: Therefore the universe was caused

Objection:

Everything that exists takes its form from existent matter in the universe, but from which it cannot be said that matter itself is caused to exist without making a circular appeal. An efficient cause can only be demonstrated if the conclusion is true, but you cannot move from P2 to the conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause”, without demonstrating “Anything that begins to exist has a cause”. For nothing in the universe begins to exist, but only changes form, ex-materia, and therefore the universe as a whole beginning to exist cannot be used to argue for an efficient cause without recourse to a circular argument.

 

[cottage]

That is perfect.

Now about your assertion that there is no other premise. Omniscient?.....

Because it so happens I am actually that Thomas and I am unmarried!

But even if I weren't the proposition is sound, as it doesn't require any empirical verification. There doesn't have to be any actual Thomas. It would be true whether I exist or not. All that is required is that the concept (Tom) is stated as being unmarried (and of course male).

 

[cottage]

They are the very meaning for our existence. Without them there would be no reason for divinity. Remove them and we would all become like atheists having to reason to exist.

That response is nothing more than subjective opinion. There is no empirical proof for a God of salvation or the author of free will and nor is there any contradiction involved, logically, in their denial.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I hope retrospect does not leave you wishing different.



Not from my point of view. He had desires. No needs, no unfulfilled wishes. He is, after all,, a God.



Yes, indeed he did.



No, just a desire for us to return. Nothing depended on us returning so it was not a need. The purpose was for us to be tried and tested in the flesh. Something we all agreed on in the council in heaven before the world was made.



Not at all. I am fully aware of what you are saying it is just that what you are saying is wrong. God did not create us spiritually. We are eternal in nature, as he is. We have always existed as spirit children and intelligences, or quantum particles. The only persons created in the flesh was Adam and Eve, through the DNA written by God. Our first parents. We have come to earth as spirits who enter the bodies of our babies. This is who we are. Souls, body and spirit combined until we die.




He doesn't have physical requirements but he does have emotional desire. He is a God who loves all of us unconditionally. We are his children. As parents we desire the best for our offspring. Are you denying this right to God just because he is a God? If anything this demonstration of his pure love for us makes him more of a God then if he had no desires or passions. I fear that you miss-interpret the meaning of perfection to facilitate your errors in your inductive reasoning that I fraught with your own biases. You are not taking full account of who and what God is.



God did not create something that has always existed, how could he. He did not bring into being that which already existed. We were, and are, lesser beings then He is. We had no body, we were sinners. Of course we were lesser beings. No Christian would contradict that. Have you not read revelations and the war in heaven. The very reason why evil is in the world.

We are in an existence not unlike the matrix. I took the blue pill whereas you took the red pill. I know that I am the product of the physical and the spiritual. And I know what roll God plays in it. My spirit is a part of the quantum network. Funny, the Matrix movie was made by a Christian.



WHY? If you had any knowledge about the plan of Salvation then you would not say that. That is why this is a argumentum ad ignorantium



God is not a fact. He transcends the need for facts.

I have not acknowledged God is not a Supreme Being in premise five, on the contrary, my response shows him as caring and compassionate making him more of a Supreme Being. You are not taking into account the attributes of a God. You are suggesting that the attributes are in fact faults.

Ah, by that you obviously mean a play on words excluding culture and colloquialisms. Trickery. When we were in the council of heaven and the plan was presented to us, God, naturally, had a desire for us all to return. As soon as the third of the host of heaven rebelled he knew that his desire would never come to pass.



No, as I have said, God had a desire for us to return to him after the trail of our faith. He cannot force us to return, as Satan wanted to do, and reap the glory, because it would remove free agency and destroy his entire plan of Salvation. He most certainly does not have needs or unfulfilled wishes, he is a God.

God had a desire for X. He cannot make X happen for reasons I have already said. In fact X will never be realised by him because of people like yourself. And X cannot be evaluated until the second coming when we will be judged for our mortal probation. I desire to own a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow. A desire I feel will never be realised, however, it is was a desire and never a unfulfilled wish. A desire is, of course a wish. A wish is a desire or hope for something that cannot or probably will not happen. An unfulfilled Wish means a wish that has not been achieved. It is in the past tense. No, God has no wishes that have not been fulfilled.



On the contrary, your assertion that God created our spirit being is false, therefore, I have refuted what you have claimed to be true. Secondly, God's desire has been fulfilled. He no longer desires a relationship with us as he has it.



We have always existed, he has always had a relationship with us, he has a relationship with 2.2 billion of us today. Therefore, God no longer has a want or desire as he has it now and continues to have it. God is pretty satisfied with the way the plan is progressing, I would think.





That would only be true if by having desires that it would, in some way, make God imperfect. It doesn't, so he is the Supreme Being.



God is a God of love and compassion. He has a desire for all of us to return to him in heaven. Does that compromise his roll as a Supreme Being, no, of course it doesn't it enhances it and makes his existence even more tenable. By demonstrating that God has desires and passion all you have done is to make his existence more probable then not, for that I thank you. Are my answers self contradictory? The premises have certainly made me think because they are a little vague, for example, premise five does not stipulate whether the needs and wants are physical or emotional. Physically he is perfect and self sustaining, however, emotionally he has perfect love, desires and passions which may appear to the non-believers as a fault rather then the attribute it is. But if it seems like my answers are self contradictory then it is because I have not fully understood what point you were making at the time or, I had to reason it out in my mind whilst I was writing, showing my "workings out", which is not a good idea. I normally give it much more thought before responding. .

Conclusion. God is very much the superior being that Christianity claims, so I can reaffirm that it is unlikely that anybody can prove any different. God lives and loves all of us equally with compassion and a desire for us to be happy.

But with respect you’ve contradicted yourself again in almost every one of your replies to the numbered premises. The concept of Supreme Being is self sufficient, autonomous, and by definition without needs. The universe is not a necessary aspect of the Supreme Being and so its very creation poses a contradiction, for if God is a personal, conscious being then he must have created the universe for a purpose. But nothing in the imperfect, finite world can be of any benefit to an all-sufficient God. And nor can it be argued that it was for our benefit, because prior to our creation we didn’t exist! Logically, then there are only two possible answers, either God is not supreme or there is no God at all. And it happens to be the case that either of those possibilities corresponds with what we find in general experience.

 

[Serenity7855]

That response is nothing more than subjective opinion. There is no empirical proof for a God of salvation or the author of free will and nor is there any contradiction involved, logically, in their denial.

No, it is an objective opinion based on the Scriptures. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Somethings do not require empirical proof for them to be true.

1. I believe that God exists, therefore, he does to me.

2. Because he exists to my satisfaction I believe that he compiled the Scriptures for people like me who believe he exists.

3. I, therefore, believe the Scriptures to me the literal word of God.

4. The Scriptures tell me that God is a God of Salvation who gave us free will.

5. That is my objective opinion based on the Scriptures.

It is therefore relevant to the discussion for without it there would be no discussion. If you want to deny that or challenge it then I certainly do not have any objections.

But with respect you’ve contradicted yourself again in almost every one of your replies to the numbered premises. The concept of Supreme Being is self sufficient, autonomous, and by definition without needs.

Well, no, that is your concept of a Supreme Being and by definition he is simply "God". The online free dictionary defines a Supreme Being as this.

Supreme Being

Noun 1. Supreme Being - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the object of worship in monotheistic religions God

The universe is not a necessary aspect of the Supreme Being and so its very creation poses a contradiction, for if God is a personal, conscious being then he must have created the universe for a purpose

.
He did. His purpose was us.

But nothing in the imperfect, finite world can be of any benefit to an all-sufficient God.

The return of his self willed children back into his presence.

And nor can it be argued that it was for our benefit, because prior to our creation we didn’t exist!

As I have said, three times now, God did not create us. We have always existed in a form similar to quantum sub-automic particles. Or intelligences. Quantum sub-automic particles flash blue and red constantly. The only time they stop flashing and remain blue or red is when you observe them. They have sufficient intelligence to know when you are observing them. They are intelligent particles. All God did was to organise those intelligences into our spirits. That self same spirit is an integral part of our soul and makes us who we are. The longer we are in this body the more those intelligences will grow in experience and knowledge. That is our purpose. Just like everything is the combination of quantum sub-automic particles in our physically observed world, is it the same in the spirit world, being tangible and conscious.

Logically, then there are only two possible answers, either God is not supreme or there is no God at all.

A Supreme Being and God are synonymous. They mean the exact same thing. Logically, if God exists then he has to be a Supreme Being.

There is a God. If you look carefully you will find Him in the same way as they determine whether you have HIV or not. They look where it has been. You can do that by looking in nature.

And it happens to be the case that either of those possibilities corresponds with what we find in general experience.

Not in the world I live in.

 

[Alt Thinker]

My point was that the verses were added to Mark to bring Mark in line with the other Gospels and do not constitute separate testimony from those Gospels.

Mark did not require being brought into line with the other Gospels. God could not physically write the Scriptures himself. He had to select existing writings to compile the Scriptures with, or influence their compilation. No single gospel could fulfil the task but four combined as one could. The four makes sure that nothing is missing.

The original ending of Mark was problematic because it made no mention of anyone seeing Jesus after the resurrection. Bits and pieces from here and there were tacked on later (in very non-Markan style) to cover up this problem. My point, once again, is that Mark does not constitute separate testimony in this matter. Without Mark there is almost no correlation between the stories about Jesus after the resurrection. Cobbling the several stories together creates a complicated tale that raises more questions than it answers, as I have documented previously.

Alt: Why should more than one Gospel have been written containing the same events? What was the need? Paul mentioned many things that also show up in the Gospels. What was the need?

Serenity: For the same reasons that I have shown above, plus, we do not see the whole picture, and for that reason, we never question God and what he does. He has a good reason for what he does.

That presumes that one already believes in the Gospels as accurate accounts. It also raises the very odd notion that God is intentionally telling a confusing story.

Alt: The Gospels tell very similar stories about Passion Week. Yet they differ substantially in the post-resurrection stories. That is the payoff without which the idea of genuine divine sanction for Jesus falls apart. Viewed in that context, the poor correlation between the Gospels and with Paul in the post-resurrection passages becomes highly problematic. Trying to fit them all together ends up with the elaborate and seemingly pointless travelogue I put together here].

Serenity: What you see as poor correlation is based on your understanding. As I have said, you do not have the full picture. Just because you do not see it all does not mean that it is contradictory. The effect of how it was written does not affect its authenticity. It has converted billions of lost souls over the centuries which means that it works very well in its correct state.

What I see in comparing Matthew and Luke is Luke quite intentionally turning Matthew on his head because Luke has an agenda that is opposite to Matthew. It is not a matter of different pieces of the same story. It is that Luke deliberately contradicts Matthew in important ways to emphasize that he has a different focus.

ALT: How does Luke know “their eyes were holden”? He was not there. For the sake of the discussion, I will assume he received this information from others and did not invent it to support his agenda of focusing on Jerusalem and away from Matthew’s Galilee, as I have argued elsewhere.

Serenity: The Holy Ghost.

When details differ noticeably among the Gospels, it is said to be because the story was passed on by fallible human beings. When a Gospel writer records something that no one could know about, it is because he was inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Sorry, not buying it. Sounds a lot more like the Gospel writers intentionally tailored their stories to suit their separate agendas.

Alt: The disciples told the Eleven that they were prevented from recognizing Jesus until he broke bread. How did they know they were prevented from recognizing Jesus as opposed to suddenly deciding this was Jesus because he did something familiar, like break bread and give it to them?

Serenity: Because their eyes were holden one moment and then they were not, at which time, they recognised him, is my guess, however, we do not have a word for word account of what was said.

And exactly why would Jesus hide his identity until the last minute? Remember he intended to keep traveling. What if he had? Sounds like maybe a tradition that after being told about an empty tomb, a couple of guys tricked themselves into thinking this stranger was Jesus, something he never claimed. Luke found this story useful for redirecting the disciples away from Galilee and back to Jerusalem.

Alt: They then say “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” (Lk 24:32) I know someone who is always saying, “I had a feeling that was going to happen” but they never mention these feelings before the fact. And note that this person who walked with them (and was going to keep traveling!) never said he was Jesus. If you did not already believe it, would you believe it?

Serenity: If I were them, yes I would. You must remember that it is a book of Commandments and not a history book. Not everything that was said and done has been reported in the Scriptures.

The importance of those commandments rests on believing Jesus rose from the dead. Paul even says so. Why is that part of the story told in such a disjointed style with almost no correlation among the tellers and a very odd result if you sum the stories? If you did not already believe it, why would you believe it?

Alt: This is at the Sea of Galilee in John 21. Even though they knew it was Jesus “None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” (Jn 21:12) Why would they be afraid to ask if they recognized him? And this is now sitting right next to him on shore, close enough to be handed bread and fish. It should not be an issue of being surprised to see Jesus alive. They already saw him twice in Jerusalem. John makes it clear that this is the third time. (Jn 21:14) Is this ‘knowing’ perhaps a matter of believing because they want to believe despite what they actually see? In other words, faith.

Serenity: You are guessing based on very little evidence. It is irrelevant to the meaning of the Scriptures and most certainly not a contradiction.

Are you aware that this is nonsensical. "Even though they knew it was Jesus “None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?". Why would they ask who he was when, as you said, they knew it was Jesus.

Why would they need to dare to ask him who he was. Why is that word used at all? Unlessof course there was a discrepancy between what they were seeing and what they wanted to believe.

Alt: Mary Magdalene had already looked at Jesus and spoken to him but did not recognize him.

Serenity: She did not recognise him because she was not looking at him. * She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.,

I had provided a quote that showed that she had already looked at Jesus and did not recognize him.

John 20
13“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

Why is there this repeated reference to Jesus not being recognized? Was there a tradition that the person who was supposed to be Jesus raised from the dead was often not recognized as Jesus? The authors could have been addressing this issue by having him first not be recognized then suddenly being recognized. See? It was Jesus after all. Ignore that old story.



As I have said earlier, if the Gospels are telling different parts of a single coherent story, why are they doing it so poorly and hereby raising such awkward questions? Where was the Holy Ghost? I will stick with my theory that the Gospels were written with varying agendas in mind and that the traditions (and each other’s writings) were adapted to serve those agendas.

 

[Shad]

An argument is a means by which evidence is presented in situations like debates, it is the evidence that proves the argument and not the argument itself. Kalams argument cannot prove itself as there is no evidence just metaphysical reasoning.

Premises are evidence, if true but not false. P1 was false as you previously agreed. So KCA proves itself logical valid but unsound. P1 and P2 provide inference to C3. However since P1 is false KCA does not prove the conclusion. Now the conclusion could still be true or false. However KCA fails to provide the argument which is both sound and valid. P1 is not metaphysical as we have examples of it being true and false in our reality.

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause - the evidence can be found by cause and effect
2. The universe began to exist - the evidence can be found by using the standard cosmological model
C. The universe had a cause - the conclusion follows the evidence presented in the argument or the first two premises.

P1 is false as I have shown and you have agreed, the KCA argument therefore is not proving the conclusion true. Please reference a logic table to see how true and false premises work within a true or false conclusion. An argument in which premises are true can not have a conclusion which is false. An argument with false premises can have a conclusion which is true or false. As I said before due to P1 being false KCA fails as a sound argument. It can not prove it's conclusion to be true ie sound.

 

[Serenity7855]

Okay then.

Then may I ask what is it you are disputing?

This.

Originally Posted by Shad View Post
Why are you continuing to discussion the KCA when you already acknowledge that it is invalid and unsound. By admitting this yet continuing using the argument shows you are illogical.

There doesn't have to be any "Tom" for the argument to be true, anymore than there has to be any triangles in the world in order to validate the truth that a triangle is the sum of its three angles.

So, does that mean that there does not have to be a precedent for something beginning to exist having a cause as we know that a body remains in its current state unless acted upon by an external force or cause, just like we know that a triangle is the sum of its three angles. Seems like an identical principle to me so why are we continuing to argue thee point.

It is essential for there to be a Tom. The argument fails otherwise as the name Tom indicates that he is a male and not a female, which would make the argument a nonsense.

But the primary premise is falsely inferred! Therefore it isn't valid and the argument is not sound.

That is a subjective opinion based on your own bias. I see "anything" differently to how you see it. Which interpretation is right, yours or mine? Even if "anything" means elements and there is no other precedent to it does not invalidate the first premise. It just causes you to investigate it further not to dismiss it because it has never happened before, therefore, the first premise is an objective opinion based on Sir Isaac Newton's first and third laws on motion. Naturalistic laws by which we determine how the world in which we live works.

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2. The universe began to exist
C: Therefore the universe was caused

Objection:

Everything that exists takes its form from existent matter in the universe, but from which it cannot be said that matter itself is caused to exist without making a circular appeal.

Not my opinion. Everything exists because the big bang gave it the building blocks to exist in space and time. However, a chair exists because it was caused to exist by a craftsman taking those building blocks and then creating a chair from them. The chair did not exist, in its current form, prior to being constructed by the chair maker, therefor it began to exist at a point in time when the construction was complete. Anything that begins to exist has a cause is a perfectly sound argument that proves itself by shear observation.

You have said "Everything that exists takes its form from existent matter in the universe" which means that the form began to exist. You have inadvertently agreed with me.

An efficient cause can only be demonstrated if the conclusion is true, but you cannot move from P2 to the conclusion: “Therefore, the universe has a cause”, without demonstrating “Anything that begins to exist has a cause”.

I agree, however, I believe that I have adequately demonstrated that Anything that begins to exist has a cause, including form. You just don't, or do not want to, believe the concept that I have demonstrate, which effectively means we are at a point of stalemate.

For nothing in the universe begins to exist, but only changes form, ex-materia, and therefore the universe as a whole beginning to exist cannot be used to argue for an efficient cause without recourse to a circular argument.

Oh, I disagree. Form begins to exist, as does a thought, love, pain, taste, sound, smell etc ect all have a beginning to our senses. Life begins to exist in its current form caused by the fertilisation of an egg and a sperm. All the wonders of our Universe begin to exist at some point in our existence, but the most satisfying event that begins to exist is when you receive the companionship of the Holy Ghost for the very first time and the true meaning of life begins to exist within your heart. Sadly, there are too many who never experience that beginning.


If nothing in the universe exists, but only changes form, ex-materia, how can that be as ex-materia means from nothing. But more important the semantics, why then is science researching matter and anti-matter, which is exactly what ex-materia means.

 

[Serenity7855]

Premises are evidence, if true but not false. P1 was false as you previously agreed. So KCA proves itself logical valid but unsound. P1 and P2 provide inference to C3. However since P1 is false KCA does not prove the conclusion. Now the conclusion could still be true or false. However KCA fails to provide the argument which is both sound and valid. P1 is not metaphysical as we have examples of it being true and false in our reality.



P1 is false as I have shown and you have agreed, the KCA argument therefore is not proving the conclusion true. Please reference a logic table to see how true and false premises work within a true or false conclusion. An argument in which premises are true can not have a conclusion which is false. An argument with false premises can have a conclusion which is true or false. As I said before due to P1 being false KCA fails as a sound argument. It can not prove it's conclusion to be true ie sound.

P1 is not false, therefore, the argument is sound. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

 

[Shad]

It is a valid and sound argument, however, how can anyone prove a cause to the universe. Only by travelling back in time with a video camera set in a vantage position could that be proven, hence, and argument could never prove it. Arguments do not prove anything.

I have already proven it was unsound, you agreed as have others in this thread, therefore it is not sound. Look up logic truth tables.

I believe that KCA is a credible argument for a cause to the big bang. That does not mean it is right just that their is a real possibility for it to be right, based on the very well known laws of cause and effect. I believe that it is the best possible explanation based on known science.

An argument which is unsound is not credible as it fails to infer a true conclusion from the premises in which one is false. It is called a bad argument not a credible argument. More so science, physics, as I have shown does not agree with you. All I need is one black swan, which I have provided, to render the argument unsound.

All redheads are stupid. (false)
Bob is a redhead. (true)
Bob is stupid. (true or false)

This argument does not prove Bob is stupid due to being a redhead. Bob may be stupid for another reason but it is not due to being a redhead. This is a bad argument nor is it credible