If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[remez]

First……..

I wish we could discuss the KCA, but you keep changing the subject.

Hold on. That was not my fault.

I gave you a theistic argument upon your request and I was fairly defending it. I did not anticipate that in the course of your opposition that you would turn course and instead oppose the basic truism of theism instead of the KCA. By basic truism here, I specifically assert the obvious that the eternal God created the universe…meaning all space, time and matter. If you cannot accept that that truism of theism then you are the one denying the obvious.

I’m not saying you have to agree, just recognize and understand. Please I don’t believe that atheists are correct but I do recognize and understand that atheism is the belief there is no God or gods. And arguably the “lack of belief” scenario. I recognize and understand both and agree with neither.

Thus you can conclude……
Theism has no good arguments because your version of theism does not make sense.

I have no longer have a problem with your faulty conclusion now that I have exposed the straw man supporting it. We can end it here because, I’m not trying to defend your straw man version of theism.



But just in case you desire to continue I’ll address the rest here……

It has always been the theistic view

There isn't much that has always been the theistic view. Theists disagree -- and have always disagreed -- on everything other than whether gods exist………

…..and blah blah blah. In some attempt to develop a case that theism is not uniform in it’s entirety.
Well
I didn’t assert that it was. You changed the context….and created a red herring by short quoting me there and altering the context.
Because specifically the context was…….

It has always been the theistic view that God created this universe, which means time, space and matter. Thus God has always existed even though time has not. Hence time is a subset of the eternal.

…..…and not all of that other diversion. Theism is the belief that an eternal transcendent creator created the universe, to include all space, matter and time.
So…..

At one point you said I should capitalize "God" because you are a monotheist, but even monotheists disagree on whether one god are three or three gods is one, or -- weirdly, perhaps, from your point of view -- one god is only one.

Since YOU brought it up.

I did not saying anything of capital G. I was redressing you notion of a plurality as opposed to a single monotheistic God. Only because every time you did that I felt I would have to always point out the singularity instead of the plurality. So I asked you to present the single case with me as to not always have to address it.
Now…..
Monotheists believe in one…mono….. God. A trio would not be monotheism. I’m not here to defend the doctrine of the trinity. But that is still monotheistic hence the doctrine.

Two Christians have told me that Jehovah created himself, which does away with any claim that theists have always believed gods to be eternal.

I could care less what 2 Christians told you regarding their unreasonable beliefs. They were flat out wrong and were not understanding theism. You need a better source. Trust me I’ve witnessed atheists that are bad sources for what they believe as well. So big deal. I would never use their fringe or uninformed beliefs to discredit actual atheistic understanding.

One Christian (Jesuit trained) told me I'm more likely to make it to Heaven than he is, because I don't believe at all, whereas he believes but sometimes falls short anyway. He wonders whether god is helium. He believes Hell exists, because the bible says it does, but he also believes (for whatever reason) that gods are good. How does he square those beliefs? Hell exists, but it is empty.

I don’t know how he squares those beliefs, but they do not match mainstream theism in regards to those issues. And those issues have nothing to do with what we are talking about. You only presented that here to develop a case for your red herring that theism is not uniform at every issue. But I never said it was.

Your defense of your it-has-always-been-the-theist-view claims is that you are talking about a particular subset of theism, which immediately devolves into a game of no true Scottsman. Your claim -- to the extent it is true at all -- reduces to this: Theists who have always agreed with your current beliefs have always agreed with your current beliefs.

You twisted my reasoning. I was only attempting to redress your implication that “I was making up something new.”

So put it on the line here. What is your recognition and understanding of theism in regards to the relationship of God and the universe, time and eternity? Spell it out. Tell me what theism is. I have my straw man detector ready.

The most you can legitimately claim is that (for some value of "eternal") some theists have always believed that gods are eternal. That's less a claim than a truism.

Precisely, and you are denying it. You are making it something else….a straw man. And I would also assert you are weakly underselling the “some theists” part to your own ends.
So again…..
What genuinely is theism to you? If it is not that.

Any claim that theists have always believed X comes across as pompous and disingenuous.

I would agree with you but for the context.

You just yourself admitted it was a truism. You were forcing me to address a truism. A long held commonly accepted truth.
And again…………
You were at that time also implying I was making up something new so I responded with reasoning to combat that. Thus in that context I was appealing to the mainstream acceptance to combat the “I alone” part and historical reference to combat the something new part. How else was I to redress your direct charge?

Making such claims is keep-off-my-side quality argumentation.

Again I agree with there in most cases. However, I did not offer that opening to defend theism, only to combat your implication that “I was making up something new.”

that God created this universe, which means time, space and matter.

That's not plausible. But, if you wanted to argue that theists have, since the advent of big bang theory, increasingly found it convenient to argue that way, then you could make a case.

1) I’m not saying you have to find theism plausible. Only to recognize and understand what it is and what it asserts.

2) The KCA long predates the BBT. And the KCA is a theistic argument. And that….. “that God created this universe, which means time, space and matter”…is a truism of theism.

3) Part of your case against the KCA, the part we’re are battling here, rests upon you fighting the truism that theism is the recognized belief that the eternal transcendent God created the universe to include all space, matter and time. You don’t like it, but that is what theism asserts.

So consider number 2 further. The KCA long predates the science that now lends support for to it. The theists were reasoning, hypothesizing, that the universe was not past eternal long before that science was available to support it. The KCA began as a philosophical argument with only philosophical reasoning to support p2. In a time period where the Aristotelian paradigm was that the universe was eternal. Hence the reason for the argument to begin with.

Thus God has always existed even though time has not.

To say that gods have always existed is to say that they have existed at all times. If the universe (including gods) began last Thursday, and your gods existed at every moment since then, then they have always existed.

To say that gods existed when time did not exist is to speak gibberish.

Pasresed….

Thus God has always existed even though time has not.

To say that gods have always existed is to say that they have existed at all times.

Yes. But not only time but more. And again I’m not asserting a plurality of gods, just one.

Thus God has always existed even though time has not.

….If the universe (including gods) began last Thursday, and your gods existed at every moment since then, then they have always existed.

Why must you alter theism…to create a straw man? When you say “If the universe (including gods) began” you are creating a straw man of theism. God did not begin. A truism of theism is that God is eternal. And again I’m not asserting a plurality of gods, just one.

Thus God has always existed even though time has not.

To say that gods existed when time did not exist is to speak gibberish.

That is your conclusion about theism. That does not change what theism is. You can find it gibberish if you want, but you can’t reasonably deny what it is.

I can conclude that astrology is gibberish but I can’t deny that it is a type of divination that involves the forecasting of earthly and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, sun, moon, and planets. To deny that is what astrology is would be unreasonable.
Further….
To alter astrology to something else that it is not in order to defeat an astrological argument would render my reasoning insufficient.

That’s my point with you here….to alter theism to something that it is not to defeat the KCA is unreasonable.

Hence time is a subset of the eternal.

On its face, that seems like meaningless word salad. When you elaborate, saying that "eternal" means "timeless" (and thus that timeless includes time) you take away doubt.

You misunderstood me there. I did not assert the eternal meant timeless. Eternal is existence without beginning or end. Timeless is existence without time. We have time now and that is part of the eternal. So the question within theism is this…Is God now timeless or temporal? But that is another subject altogether.

 

[Learner]

Nope, that is not plausible at all. It means “he” made a decision to create during a phase when nothing was able to change.
Otherwise, “he” could not decide to create and was merely Big Banged himself.

Time means change. To go from timeless to temporal requires a change. But without time, by definition, nothing changes.

You and your theists are just inventing definitions so you can make your god exist.
I can see why you’d need to do that because your first story has a major plot hole and you needed to plug it with something.

No time, “timeless” means no change. Not even a decision to change. No change.

Thats one use of timeless that you portray which I'll acknowledge as a fair point of view..as according to your particular philosophy.

Timeless also means NOT affected by any time or change whilst still being able to think and make descisions.

Cambridge Dictionary: lasting forever; example, never showing the effects of aging or ...having a value that is not limited to a particular period but will last for ever.

Time is meaningless in an Always Was/ Is or Eternal use in simple language understanding.

 

[remez]

I don’t “want” a contradiction. There is one.

The one you presented is not in conflict with the theistic model I provided. You don’t even know the theology there. Hint; I’m not omniscient and neither are you, thus we need time to think sequentially. Think about it. Why would an omniscient God need to think sequentially? You presented a perceived conflict from your one sided perspective of nature only. You did not consider the real theism, only your naturalistic straw man of theism. You folks keep after me to understand the science. Well if you are going to attempt to find conflict on some theistic issue then represent that theism on that issue correctly. It makes you look bad.

Your reasoning does not address a complete understanding of the theistic doctrine of divine eternity, immutability, aseity, simplicity etc.

Theistic doctrine is not reality,

That is your conclusion…..what is your reasoning for that…………..

Theistic doctrine is not reality, There is no reason to understand theistic doctrine to understand reality. One can understand reality perfectly well without ever settign foot on theistic doctrine. Theistic doctrine is shit that humans made up. It always has been. YOur god doesn’t communicate and can’t tell the world anything about itself. So you have humans making shit up about it.

Parsed………joyfully………line by line….

There is no reason to understand theistic doctrine to understand reality.

Quite an arrogant statement really. It assumes you understand all of reality and can conclude theism can’t represent it. Well good for you. Please settle this once and for all for us all. Because I have a lot of questions. Here is the first few…… Did the universe begin to exist or is it eternal in the past? If it did begin to exist then how did that happen? And please give me some scientific evidence. Not that I don’t trust you. I just like puzzles. If I didn’t begin to exist then why is there still usable energy left? I have more but will wait for those first.

Now if you can’t answer those with certainty, then we have a BIG issue. The entirety of reality is not understood. So why is it I must accept your version of reality as sacred? Or you mine? We don’t. We try to reason through the best we can……Philosophy 101.
So
Logically if we were going to oppose one another philosophically then we should be open to AT LEAST UNDERSTAND one another’s reasoning to properly address the conflict.
But
You are CONCUDING that for you to understand theism is essentially….a waste of time. Because you know it all anyway.
Wow
That ironically sounds so much like the common caricature of the blind faith Christian. Yes they do exist and I have done battle with them so I know what it feels like. Hence the analogy.

One can understand reality perfectly well without ever settign foot on theistic doctrine.

Sure you can understand your little part of reality without theistic considerations. You can hide in that little world if you want.
But
What if I have bigger questions? The first cause? Does God exist? What if the universe is or is not past eternal? Why is there something rather than nothing at all?
Now…..
Why should theism be excluded from those questions?

Theistic doctrine is shit that humans made up.

Back to ………. why is your crap better than mine?
And
Note you are CONCLUDING that from the perspective of not knowing the theistic doctrine involved and at the same time excusing yourself from your epistemic duty to know anything about that which you are opposing. How is that not pure arrogance?
And………….

It always has been.

…….arrogant.

YOur god doesn’t communicate and can’t tell the world anything about itself.

Remember that CONCLUSION is precisely asserted in the context…… of providing reason…… to excuse yourself…. from having to understand theism. Do you see the problem?

So you have humans making shit up about it.

Thanks for such a great example.

That is a full two years of theological course work.

Goodness. That’s how long it takes to wrap your brain in a preztel tight enough to snuff out the oxygen and think this stuff is true?

How long did it take you?
Oh that’s right, you proudly got an A in the elective of arrogance 101.

Tone 4 tone
All in good fun.

 

[Rhea]

I could care less what 2 Christians told you regarding their unreasonable beliefs. They were flat out wrong and were not understanding theism.

LOLZ

 

[Keith&Co.]

Timeless also means NOT affected by any time or change whilst still being able to think and make descisions.

So, which is it? You really must pick one or the other.

If time started at the universe's creation, then godguy existing before time means timeless-as-in-no-time, thus no change.
If godguy was timeless to mean time-passed-but-godguy-is-eternal, then extending time eternally backwards means the universe extends eternally backwards. Meaning you either cannot have godguy creating the universe OR we don't need godguy creating an independently eternal universe

 

[remez]

Oh I missed one......

And talking about circularity...

Fantasists (theists) say that eternal can mean timeless (cuz it's fun making shit up). So someone adds that usage into a dictionary. Then when the fantasists need to prove eternal can mean timeless, they say "just look at the dictionary".

Well…

Let’s investigate…..abaddon see’s something he has never seen before and implies that we should all just ignore that part of the definition……… because…...for fun he made up…..that someone just simply added it to the dictionary for no real reason. Talk about circular emoting.

That’s why I like Dawkin’s, made up for fun definition of “blind faith”….belief against the evidence. That one was new for me when it was first revealed to me. As you can see I didn’t just ignore it, because I directly apply it to you there. So just put your head back in the sand and ignore the reality of the definition.

 

[DBT]

Nope, that is not plausible at all. It means “he” made a decision to create during a phase when nothing was able to change.
Otherwise, “he” could not decide to create and was merely Big Banged himself.

Time means change. To go from timeless to temporal requires a change. But without time, by definition, nothing changes.

You and your theists are just inventing definitions so you can make your god exist.
I can see why you’d need to do that because your first story has a major plot hole and you needed to plug it with something.

No time, “timeless” means no change. Not even a decision to change. No change.

Thats one use of timeless that you portray which I'll acknowledge as a fair point of view..as according to your particular philosophy.

Timeless also means NOT affected by any time or change whilst still being able to think and make descisions.

Cambridge Dictionary: lasting forever; example, never showing the effects of aging or ...having a value that is not limited to a particular period but will last for ever.

Time is meaningless in an Always Was/ Is or Eternal use in simple language understanding.

Time is our measurement of rates of change.

If there is no change associated with God, God does not think or act.

Thought and action has a beginning, a middle and and end.

Thought and action is time.

A timless God is a God that does not think or act.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think it's the atheists who are asking for proof etc.

I cant find any scriptural invocation that compels me to prove God exists to the satisfaction of empiricists, presuppositional atheists and methodological skeptics

You're right. In fact scriptures are explicitly anti reason, anti rationality and attack those who seek any justification other than blind unquestioning obedience and belief. That's why the scriptures are a vile and immoral antithesis to human liberty and reason, and thus to all moral, political, and intellectual progress of humanity.

And yet, throughout all of Judaism and Christianity, adherents have attempted to (and failed) to concoct rational defenses of theism. Believers everywhere have scrambled to consume and hold up such attempts, gleeful when the same old tropes in different veneer are presented to them as new proof, too stupid to see that their failed reasoning is has been tried countless times. So, it's clear that the reason the scriptures are so clearly anti-intellectual and anti-rationality is that their writers knew that it's human nature to know that rational thought is the sole foundation of real knowledge and thus to seek out anything resembling such to justify beliefs they have no basis to accept other than wishful thinking and obedience. So, when they continually fail to do so, the scripture are their to console them by saying that rational thinking isn't important anyway.

 

[Lion IRC]

1st Peter 3:15 says "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason..."
That's all you have to do. Give the reason why you think what you do about God.

The bible also says beware of vain philosophies (like atheism)
Beware means Be Aware.

 

[abaddon]

And talking about circularity...

Fantasists (theists) say that eternal can mean timeless (cuz it's fun making shit up). So someone adds that usage into a dictionary. Then when the fantasists need to prove eternal can mean timeless, they say "just look at the dictionary".

Well…

Let’s investigate…..abaddon see’s something he has never seen before...

False. [removed]

and implies that we should all just ignore that part of the definition

False. [removed]

because…...for fun he made up…..that someone just simply added it to the dictionary for no real reason.

False. Nothing I said implies this. [removed]

... So just put your head back in the sand and ignore the reality of the definition.

The reality of the definition is it's more insubstantial than the definition for a unicorn. Dictionary-writers only report on usage, not on meaningfulness. Pointing at the dictionary and saying theists use the word this way doesn't make it meaningful. It just means it's used, and that is "the reality of" any definition.

You have to explain how events happen in timelessness without falling back on definitions or a theistic tradition.

 

[Lion IRC]

Clarification of Rule 7:
Calling a fellow poster a liar, deceitful, or making a similar accusation, is not acceptable

 

[abaddon]

Clarification of Rule 7:
Calling a fellow poster a liar, deceitful, or making a similar accusation, is not acceptable

Trolling (ie, incessantly goading people) for 5 years is not acceptable.

 

[Lion IRC]

Clarification of Rule 7:
Calling a fellow poster a liar, deceitful, or making a similar accusation, is not acceptable

Trolling (ie, incessantly goading people) for 5 years is not acceptable.

Are you calling me a troll?

 

[abaddon]

I not only did not call you a troll, I don't think of you as a troll. You were interceding for remez, I think, so your little intercession refers back to him.

 

[DBT]

1st Peter 3:15 says "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason..."
That's all you have to do. Give the reason why you think what you do about God.

The bible also says beware of vain philosophies (like atheism)
Beware means Be Aware.

Atheism is not a philosophy. A religion may issue warnings to believers in order to protect the faith.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.0713.pdf

Is that your attempt at humor? Pick one and discuss how it supports Kalam. Grab a quote or two from the article.

 

[Rhea]

Remez, it seems like you don’t realize that you canNOT pick definition #6 from the dictionary And claim it is the scientific definition of a physical thing.

I GET it. I get that word play and trickery are the only tools you have to rescue your theistic ideology. We all get it.

But reality intrudes. It is not reason, logic, science or truth for you to use wordplay to shoehorn your god into something that you want to call “reason.”

It just isn’t there.

Time is how we measure change. Change is how we detect time.

A being that exists outside of time also exists outside of change. That’s science; it’s reality. And every iota of the universe obeys it. And “theistic ideology” or whatever you claimed I don’t embrace, cannot change that truth. The other definitions are colloquialisms, not reason, not reality. The mean something in conversation, “I do this all the damn time!” or some such, but that is not the definition for either science or philosophy.

I get how badly you need this. I get it. It’s existential to you.
If “timeless” really means without change - as it really means - then your god disappears in a pouffda of stasis.
And that is terrifying to you.

I’m sorry this is so traumatic, I really am.

But “time” only has meaning when there is change. And when there is change - there is time.
And if you imagine a god who changed something, then there was time at the moment of the change from not having decided to do it - to having decided to do it.

And, deep down, you have absolutely no evidence or reason of any kind to suppose That some “god” is at the root of any change anyway. All of your arguments end with, “and therefore, GOD!” But it might as well be, “and therefore, golden toilets!” For all you know.

It’s a leap. A silly one. But I get that it means the universe to you. I’m so sorry. It’s story someone made up.

 

[Rhea]

Remez you also keep playing the game of “tu quoque” but that doesn’t work either . You keep saying these two are equivalent:

• Atheists say that matter, energy and time before the Big Bang acted the same as matter energy and time after the big bang.
  
  Versus
  
  
• Theists say that matter energy and time before the big bang acted completely differently and has a mind and consciousness and personality! than matter energy and time after the big bang.

And you claim that you are no worse than us, that you’re story is just as reasonable...

And son, it just ain’t. Those two are not equivalent. Not any day of the week.

 

[Wiploc]

First……..

Hold on. That was not my fault.

I gave you a theistic argument upon your request and I was fairly defending it. I did not anticipate that in the course of your opposition that you would turn course and instead oppose the basic truism of theism instead of the KCA.

You want me to agree with your religion before you argue the KCA?

By basic truism here, I specifically assert the obvious that the eternal God created the universe…meaning all space, time and matter.

First, I don't understand your use of the word "truism." I think of truisms as tautologies, like, "The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club." I can't make out what you think it means. In that, "truism" is like "theism" and "eternity."

Everyone who believes in personal gods (gods who are people, who have personality) is a theist. That's my understanding of theism. I have less and less idea of what you mean by the word.

If somebody believed in Thor, but not in any creator god, she would be a theist. She wouldn't have to have any notion of time beginning to be a theist.

If you cannot accept that that truism of theism then you are the one denying the obvious.

I demur.

I’m not saying you have to agree, just recognize and understand.

You can find lots of theists who agree with you that gods created time and stuff. But that doesn't make them the only theists. And none of this is relevant to the KCA.

Please I don’t believe that atheists are correct but I do recognize and understand that atheism is the belief there is no God or gods.

Anybody who isn't a theist is an atheist. We don't have to believe theists are wrong. We just have to not be theists ourselves.

The thing is, I don't insist that you agree with me about atheism before I discuss the KCA. You can be wrong atheism (in my opinion) and I can be wrong about theism (in your opinion) and we should still be able to discuss the KCA.

But, somehow, you're unwilling to discuss the KCA until I agree with your peculiar usage of the word "theism."

First, I don't understand what all you compass under the word "theism," and, second, I don't agree with the part I do understand.

Nor do I understand why it is relevant. Why can't we discuss the KCA without first deciding that your usage of the word "theist" is the one true usage?

And arguably the “lack of belief” scenario.

Oh, thank you.

I recognize and understand both and agree with neither.

I recognize that you are some kind of theist, and I neither understand nor agree with it. Why can't that be enough? Why can't we talk about the KCA?

Thus you can conclude……
Theism has no good arguments because your version of theism does not make sense.

The reason I think theists don't have any good arguments is that good arguments drive out bad. Theists want us to agree with them, but they exclusively use terrible arguments in their attempts to get us to agree.

If they had good arguments, they wouldn't use terrible arguments.

I have no longer have a problem with your faulty conclusion now that I have exposed the straw man supporting it.

Sorry, I failed to pasresed.

We can end it here because, I’m not trying to defend your straw man version of theism.

Good. I wouldn't want you to. I want to discuss the KCA.

And you, incidentally, are the one with the weird idea of theism. I think it means believing in gods.

It has always been the theistic view that God created this universe,

Nonsense. Surely people believed in other gods before they thought of creator gods.

which means time, space and matter.

Sometimes it does, yes. But some people wonder where everything came from, not just some things.

Thus God has always existed even though time has not.

Time hasn't always existed? That's riotously weird. Tell me, when didn't time exist?

Hence time is a subset of the eternal.

How does that work? Is it just word salad? Or, since theists have always agreed on it, is there some explainable concept associated with that phrase?

…..…and not all of that other diversion.

I'm not the one diverting. I want to talk about the KCA. If you want to talk about the KCA too, then we can do that instead of discussing these irrelevancies.

Theism is the belief that an eternal transcendent creator created the universe, to include all space, matter and time.

No, theism is the belief that gods exist.

So…..

At one point you said I should capitalize "God" because you are a monotheist, but even monotheists disagree on whether one god are three or three gods is one, or -- weirdly, perhaps, from your point of view -- one god is only one.

Since YOU brought it up.

I brought it up?

All I did is decline to go along with the fiction that a first cause should be presumed to be Jehovah and friends. If you proved a first cause, you wouldn't even have proved a god, let alone your god(s).

I did not saying anything of capital G. I was redressing you notion of a plurality as opposed to a single monotheistic God. Only because every time you did that I felt I would have to always point out the singularity instead of the plurality. So I asked you to present the single case with me as to not always have to address it.

I still believe that if you use the singular and I use the plural, then readers will see that we are setting aside questions like, "Is the first cause necessarily presumed to be some particular god(s)?" and, "How many gods are in a trinity," in order to discuss some specific other thing, like, for instance, whether the KCA is defensible.

Now…..
Monotheists believe in one…mono….. God. A trio would not be monotheism. I’m not here to defend the doctrine of the trinity.

Then why do you insist on addressing that rather than the KCA?

But that is still monotheistic hence the doctrine.

The Jews were monotheistic. The Christians originally claimed to still be Jews, so they had to be monotheists too. Their problem was that they worshiped a different god than the other Jews. If they called themselves polytheists, they'd be cutting themselves off from their own religious roots. They'd be an upstart religion, rejected by their neighbors, without cultural legitimacy. They didn't want to be polytheists, but they also didn't want to give up their new god.

So they invented a new meaning for "monotheism." They decided that monotheists can worship as many gods as they want so long as they claim that there is some undefined sense in which several gods are one. That sense doesn't have to be explained; it doesn't have to make sense; it just has to be claimed.

The above is my personal theory. Please note how I don't say, "Atheists have always believed this theory."

Two Christians have told me that Jehovah created himself, which does away with any claim that theists have always believed gods to be eternal.

I could care less what 2 Christians told you regarding their unreasonable beliefs. They were flat out wrong and were not understanding theism.

I'm just demonstrating that not all theists agree with you even today. It is absurd for you to claim that theists have always agreed with you.

You need a better source.

There is no better source. Their theory makes as much sense as yours.

Trust me I’ve witnessed atheists that are bad sources for what they believe as well.

Then it's a good thing I don't go around claiming that atheists have always agreed with me.

So big deal. I would never use their fringe or uninformed beliefs to discredit actual atheistic understanding.

I'm not discrediting theist understanding. I'm just refusing to go along with your absurd claim that theists have always agreed with you.

One Christian (Jesuit trained) told me I'm more likely to make it to Heaven than he is, because I don't believe at all, whereas he believes but sometimes falls short anyway. He wonders whether god is [hydrogen]. He believes Hell exists, because the bible says it does, but he also believes (for whatever reason) that gods are good. How does he square those beliefs? Hell exists, but it is empty.

I don’t know how he squares those beliefs, but they do not match mainstream theism in regards to those issues.

Agreed, there are a lot of theists who'd disagree with him. But they also disagree with each other. Often, they disagree with themselves, or at least contradict themselves.

But they always agree with you, right?

And those issues have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Thank you! Shall we now talk about the KCA?

You only presented that here to develop a case for your red herring that theism is not uniform at every issue.

See, you can't actually defend the KCA with logic, so you chase after tangents in the hope that we won't notice you refusing to actually talk about the KCA itself.

(The previous sentence would be uncalled for except that it mirrors the tecnique and the rudeness of your sentence that precedes it.)

So put it on the line here. What is your recognition and understanding of theism in regards to the relationship of God and the universe, time and eternity? Spell it out.

Why should I have to develop some theory of theism in order to talk about the KCA?

Tell me what theism is. I have my straw man detector ready.

Theism is the belief in gods. (Note that the plural should be acceptable to you here because theists don't all believe in the same god. Theists, as a group, believe in multiple gods.)

The most you can legitimately claim is that (for some value of "eternal") some theists have always believed that gods are eternal. That's less a claim than a truism.

Precisely, and you are denying it. You are making it something else….a straw man. And I would also assert you are weakly underselling the “some theists” part to your own ends.

Sorry, I again failured to parse.

So again…..
What genuinely is theism to you?

Theism is having the belief that gods do exist.
Atheism is not having that belief.

If it is not that.

Sorry, no parse.

Any claim that theists have always believed X comes across as pompous and disingenuous.

I would agree with you but for the context.

The context is that you keep saying theists have always agreed with you.

You just yourself admitted it was a truism. You were forcing me to address a truism.

I meant a tautology. Since you use "truism" differently, I looked it up. It does have several meanings.

This is from Dictionary.com:

-
Contrary to what some people believe, the word truism is not a more elegant word for truth. While the word truth can occasionally be used to refer to a “truism,” since truisms are often true, the reverse—the use of truism to mean “truth”—is unwise. Truism stands for a certain kind of truth—a cliché, a platitude, something so self-evident that it is hardly worth mentioning. One can use it to accuse another writer or speaker of saying something so obvious or evident and trite that pointing it out is pointless. To say that a statement is a truism when you intend to compliment it as truthful, factual, even provable, will merely serve to confuse those who know that calling something a truism is not praise, but a criticism or insult.

Note, however, that truism is used in a technical sense in mathematics or philosophy for restating something that is already known from its terms or premises. Examples of such truisms include: “Men are not women” and “Since the circumference of a circle equals twice the radius multiplied by π (2π r ), it equals the diameter multiplied by π (π d ).”
-

 

[Wiploc]

1) I’m not saying you have to find theism plausible. Only to recognize and understand what it is and what it asserts.

a) I don't think that's relevant to the KCA. I think the effort would be a waste of our time.

b) The KCA is only three simple lines, but we can't make any progress on that because we can't even get to those lines. What progress would we be likely to make if I undertook to beat your definition of theism out of you?

2) The KCA long predates the BBT. And the KCA is a theistic argument. And that….. “that God created this universe, which means time, space and matter”…is a truism of theism.

The KCA does predate the big bang theory, but I have no reason to believe Kalam believed in the partaverse you describe.

3) Part of your case against the KCA, the part we’re are battling here, rests upon you fighting the truism that theism is the recognized belief that the eternal transcendent God created the universe to include all space, matter and time. You don’t like it, but that is what theism asserts.

You undertook to show that two premises are likely true, and that one conclusion flows logically from those premises. But you can't even address that topic. Instead you spend all of our time trying to sell me on a peculiar, irrelevant, and undisclosed definition of theism.

So consider number 2 further. The KCA long predates the science that now lends support for to it.

Horsefeathers.

Yes, the KCA predates, but that's all can grant you.

The theists were reasoning, hypothesizing, that the universe was not past eternal long before that science was available to support it. The KCA began as a philosophical argument with only philosophical reasoning to support p2. In a time period where the Aristotelian paradigm was that the universe was eternal. Hence the reason for the argument to begin with.

Is the KCA still relevant? Does it still make sense? If so, then we ought to be able to discuss it now without the distorted history lesson.

Thus God has always existed even though time has not.

To say that gods have always existed is to say that they have existed at all times. If the universe (including gods) began last Thursday, and your gods existed at every moment since then, then they have always existed.

To say that gods existed when time did not exist is to speak gibberish.

Pasresed….

Thus God has always existed even though time has not.

To say that gods have always existed is to say that they have existed at all times.

Yes. But not only time but more.

"Always" is what you call a tensed word. It has to do with time. It means "at all times."

It does not mean "at all times plus whatever remez wants to toss into the mix."

And again I’m not asserting a plurality of gods, just one.

I understand that, just as you understand that I'm not conceding that the KCA proves there's only one god, or even one.

Thus God has always existed even though time has not.

….If the universe (including gods) began last Thursday, and your gods existed at every moment since then, then they have always existed.

Why must you alter theism…to create a straw man? When you say “If the universe (including gods) began” you are creating a straw man of theism. God did not begin. A truism of theism is that God is eternal. And again I’m not asserting a plurality of gods, just one.

Why must you always twist and wriggle to evade my points?

I'm not creating a straw man. I'm illustrating my point with a hypothetical.

Let's have a new illustration, a hypothetical illustration:

Suppose the universe began two minutes ago.
Suppose further that Xal-X, the demon of quadratic equations, has existed for that entire two minutes.

In that case, Xal-x has always existed. He existed for all of time, see. Maybe he also existed for a timeless "eternity," or maybe not, but he definitely existed always.

Thus God has always existed even though time has not.

To say that gods existed when time did not exist is to speak gibberish.

That is your conclusion about theism. That does not change what theism is. You can find it gibberish if you want, but you can’t reasonably deny what it is.

Shouldn't theists strive to avoid gibberish arguments? Shouldn't they work for logic and relevancy, to the best of their abilities?

I can conclude that astrology is gibberish but I can’t deny that it is a type of divination that involves the forecasting of earthly and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, sun, moon, and planets. To deny that is what astrology is would be unreasonable.

I'm with you. But I don't know what that has to do with the KCA.

Further….
To alter astrology to something else that it is not in order to defeat an astrological argument would render my reasoning insufficient.

If you start insisting that astrologists have always agreed with you ...

That’s my point with you here….to alter theism to something that it is not to defeat the KCA is unreasonable.

1. I'm not altering it.

2. If I did alter it, that wouldn't defeat the KCA. It wouldn't even be relevant to the KCA.

Hence time is a subset of the eternal.

On its face, that seems like meaningless word salad. When you elaborate, saying that "eternal" means "timeless" (and thus that timeless includes time) you take away doubt.

You misunderstood me there.

Possibly.

I did not assert the eternal meant timeless.

Are we now to dispute whether "saying" is "asserting"?

Eternal is existence without beginning or end.

You have agreed to a definition of "begin" according to which your gods indisputably did begin.

Timeless is existence without time. We have time now and that is part of the eternal. So the question within theism is this…Is God now timeless or temporal? But that is another subject altogether.

It's another subject? Then let's talk about the KCA instead.