You said your gods are eternal and unbegun. You also said your gods exist in time and that time began. You further said that something begins if it exists at a given point in time and doesn't exist before that.
That's a contradiction. According to that definition of "begin," if a god exists at time zero but doesn't exist before time zero, then that god began. You say that your god didn't begin, but you define "begin" in a way that means they did begin.
You contradicted yourself, and I pointed out the contradiction.
And again I point out that your contradiction fails here…………….
That's a contradiction. According to that definition of "begin," if a god exists at time zero but doesn't exist before time zero, then that god began.
God existed “before” time zero. God is eternal. Time is not. Just because time began to exist does not mean God began to exist. a Hence God existed “before” time zero. God without time is timeless.
Hence no contradiction.
Further
That is when you started asserting that I can’t talk about God because we’re talking about the KCA.
The argument does not end at ‘the universe had a cause”.
Sure it does. I asked what the KCA was, and you gave the traditional three lines ending with something like, "Therefore, the universe had a cause."
You ended your KCA with "the universe had a cause." Your argument did in fact end at "the universe had a cause."
You are really going to force me to show you the obvious. I mean that is why I presented the KCA in the first place…to conclude “On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.” I was never hiding the fact that this was WLC’s argument. To now deny that I was presenting something completely short of that is desperate.
But anyway
Here you go…………
Starting over a month ago with Post 97………..
p1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
p2 The universe began to exist.
C: The universe has a cause.
Brief intro…..I reason that the universe (by universe I mean, all of spacetime reality, the space time continuum to include all time, space and matter) began to exist. Evidenced by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, the galaxy seeds, relativity, the BGV theorem, all the failed cosmological models for and eternal universe, the absence of any viable cosmological model theorizing eternality in the past, etc.
I’m not claiming absolute certainty, I claiming reasonable certainty. So this is how that plays out in p2. I’m not asserting that I’m absolutely certain that the universe began, but that p2 is more reasonable than it’s alternatives……thus I’m reasonably certain that it began. Put another way…. I contend that it is far more plausible that the universe began to exist than the possibility that it is eternal in the past. Also to be clear….. I’m not asserting I know HOW it began, but that I’m reasonably certain THAT it began.
In no way was that intro exhaustive, it was very brief, because I’m granting to you a higher level of understanding with the KCA. I was just hoping to avoid the obvious bogs I usually run into here. However, I’m ready to address whatever you desire.
Your turn.
Bold add for emphasis
I granted too much and now you hold that against me. Anyway I did in my next response to you spell it out further……
We are not bound by your imaginings.
If you say that everything is caused back to the big bang, and if you imagine that some magic kingdom or alternate universe precedes the big bang, that doesn't mean you get to invent rules for this alternate phase space where you think your gods live.
No magic kingdom. Just a timeless, immaterial, spaceless, efficient first cause. That is also reasoned to be personal, all powerful and all knowing….but that is not for here or in purview of what I’m reasoning right now. A God of that reasoned nature need not time, matter, or space to exist. Those of us within this universe need that, but we need not to reason that God needs that.
Now that was if you remember a very, very long post. So in the very next post I offered………..
Wiploc,
My last response was incredibly long. But it was a sincere effort to address everything. Now that I have, I really feel I can summarize that to a more reasonable length for easier discussion. However my time is limited for the next 48 hours. Thus I offer this alternative to you.
Please just simply read my response for info sake and await for my shortened summery to respond. That way you can respond to both in your response to my summary. And potentially have 48 hours to simply reflect. I’m in no hurry. I’ll try to courteously inform you of sporadic schedule delays on my end if they will be over 48 hrs.
You of course may do as you wish and address it in part or its entirety any time you wish. I was only offering a hopeful help.
You accepted. So I refocused……
We were not focused on the properties of the first cause there we at the time were trying to understand each other’s position on what theism actually was for our discussion. I learned that I must actually be more specific to present a transcendent mono-theism. Meaning the common understand the God existed beyond this universe.
BUT BUT BUT
That never implied that reasoning of the KCA didn’t conclude with a ….
Summary and Conclusion
In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exist. Given the intuitively obvious principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, we have been led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to be uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have to be a personal agent who freely elects to create an effect in time. Therefore, on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument, I conclude that it is rational to believe that God exists.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
We good?
We examine the universe forensically to determine the properties that the cause of the universe must have and those properties match the classical theistic God. I have presented this several times now.
You have repeated the claim. You have made no attempt to support the claim. It's just a bald claim, off topic and indefensible.
You have not asked me to support anything. Why shouldn’t I reason that the reason I gave was understood until you challenge it? For example…..I stated the reasoning as to why God is immaterial…..so what’s wrong with it? What’s wrong with any of them?
I saw him debate. Whether it was live or on video (I've seen both) I don't remember. A member of the audience asked how Craig gets his string of adjectives (uncaused, eternal, etc.) from the KCA. Craig said that the KCA just proves there was a cause; other arguments prove the nature of the cause.
I still contend you have that mixed up. That is his response to how we get from the conclusion of the KCA….transcendent mono-theistic God…… to the biblical Christian God.
So….
To end this contention in your favor……Simply supply the evidence that he reasoned that. Good luck.
If the KCA worked, then you would have a basis for those other arguments, a place to start. They are weak reeds, worthless arguments, based on wishful thinking, but, by pretending the KCA works, ……
You are pretending the KCA doesn’t work. You have not made the case that your position is more reasonable. Lets review…..
You offered a weak notion for meriological nihilism, which does not make your case reasonable unless you can tell me where you were during the Jurassic period.
You took a stab with quantum indeterminism but failed to support it.
You admitted the argument was valid being there was no equivocation….which I defended.
All you have presented is a battle between your definition of theism against mine and I have defended mine.
Another battle over "eternal" that I have defended.
Another battle over “begins” which we agree on until you make a non-sequitur jump to God began….again addressed and defended above. God existed “before” time zero.
So where have you made the case that the KCA is pretend?
Step 1: Use the KCA to prove that part of the universe had a cause.
Step 2: Examine the nature of that cause to prove the cause resembles your god.
If you don't do step 1, you can't get to step 2.
If you were to make the KCA work, then I'd be interested in step 2. I'd want to discuss it. But you won't touch step 1 with a ten foot pole.
Parsed below. Now since you ridiculed my parsing I offer this defense. I quoted that as a whole to maintain the whole of the context. Thus now I’m redressing each part. It is also separated by extra space before and after as a courtesy to show it as one whole separate thought.
Step 1: Use the KCA to prove that part of the universe had a cause.
Not quite.
1. It does not…..Prove…..it is reasonably certain….we agreed on this earlier.
2. The whole KCA reasonably concludes the transcendent mono-theistic God of those qualities exists.
3. Step 1. Is actually……The valid syllogism that deduces the universe has a cause.
4. You have not made a case as to why the syllogism is unsound. Presented above. You still have stuff there to defend.
Step 2: Examine the nature of that cause to prove the cause resembles your god.
Step 2….is after the real step 1…… Which is the syllogism not the whole KCA. But yes step 2…is… Examine the nature of that cause to reasonably conclude the cause resembles the God the argument was constructed for.
If you don't do step 1, you can't get to step 2.
But step 1 is not the entire KCA….it’s only the syllogism. The KCA is the syllogism which is step 1 and step 2. Hence why my first post with you only really addressed step 1.
If you were to make the KCA work, then I'd be interested in step 2. I'd want to discuss it. But you won't touch step 1 with a ten foot pole.
Then make your case that the syllogism (step 1) is unsound. You have attempted and I have redressed every objection. See above. Where have you defended any of what I offered against your objections? I made it clear for example, what it is you would have to do to save your objection of indeterminism and you just left it prone for dead. I clubbed it to death with a ten foot pole. I’m truly interested in how you would resuscitate your objection against my clubbing.
So why should anyone reason that your objection defeats the syllogism?
Until you do your duty and save it.
Each and every time I have responded to your assorted objections. If I missed one point it out. How is it you just get to pretend your objections were not challenged right back? How is it you just get to pretend that your objections were successful?
I have been defending the KCA at every step.
No, you change the subject insistently.
Only according to your limited view. It’s not a matter of changing the subject ….it’s clarification of your limited reasoning about the theology involved.
If your objections represented a straw man, then it is my duty to expose that. Your straw men have continually limited the theism to your ends and you blame me with changing the subject when I point it out.
Again……You don’t get to have it both ways……You don’t get to reason that god begun to exist as an objection to the KCA and then shut me down from responding that objection by then reasoning that the KCA doesn’t say anything about God.
If you contradict yourself, I get to point that out.
Absolutely. But if your indicated contradiction does not match the theology then IT is my job to point it out. It’s not changing the subject. It’s redressing a straw man that you presented.
If you don’t think this argument has anything to do with God
Then…
Why did you raise the objection that god began to exist to oppose p1?
Because, according to our agreed definition of "begin," the god you describe began. Logically, then, if you don't want god to have begun, you need to get either a different god or a different definition of "begin."
See your comment forces us to look at and understand what it means to be transcendent and eternal.
If I respond to your limited understanding of God then you dismiss me as changing the subject.
But I’ll try anyway…..
How does the God I describe not exist “before” t=0?
Already addressed above when I clubbed your contradiction.
Because…..
God is not even in the KCA according to you.
Thus
Your objection about God beginning in p1 fails….. by its own reasoning that god is not in the KCA, thus you really have no objection.
And thus…
The KCA remains unaffected by your objection that God must have begun to exist.
I don't believe god even exists. You're the one who says that god existed at some time but not before that. And you're the one who defines that as
beginning. And you're the one who says your god didn't begin.
You can't have it both ways.
That doesn’t address the reasoning there at all. You changed the subject back to “begins”. I already addressed that twice above. Your supposed contradiction needs further support.
But….
The real contention there in that quote had to do with your desperate attempt to assert that the KCA (to your limited reasoning…just the syllogism) doesn’t talk about God.
Yet at the same time…..
You were objecting something about God and then asserting I was changing the subject when I attempted to address your limited understanding about God.
If you raise an objection about the nature of God, you then can’t reasonably contend…… that if I address that…… that I changed the subject. Thus you don’t get to have it both ways.
