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.
Please allow me this brief attempt to clarify why it matters to the KCA what God we are arguing for.
Sure.
I did not offer the KCA to reason that your version of god exists.
I don't have a god. I don't believe in any gods.
Further (because I'm a strong atheist rather than a weak atheist) I believe that no gods exist.
The KCA is an argument that argues to a specific God,
It argues for a cause, not even a first cause, certainly not for a single divine cause.
WLC (William Lane Craig) agrees with me. (We don't agree on much.) The KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument), in his opinion, establishes a cause, and then
other arguments go on from there to show the nature of that cause, which, as far as I can remember, matches the characteristics that you list: god is powerful, timeless, etc.
All the KCA even purports to show is that there was a cause. You don't need any particular god, or a god at all, to be that cause.
If the KCA was supportable, if the premises were probably true and the logic good, then you could be talking about that. You undertook to talk about that. Talking about that is why I'm here.
But you won't do it. You want to teach me about the god of the philosophers instead.
I decline your offer. First, if I tried to take you up on that, you would probably talk about something else instead. Second, there are supposed to be about 4000 gods, none of which interest me. I don't believe in them. They hold no significance to me. Growing up in Kansas, I got far more information than I wanted about Christian gods.
But I like logic. If you wanted to talk about the logic of the KCA, we could do that.
that I have overtly and repeatedly characterized for you. The one that I’ve been calling the God of theism. (aka the God of the philosophers, the God of classic theism)
Yeah, I don't know about that. I don't want to know about that.
It feels to me like -- and I'm not attributing motive to you, just telling you about my frustration -- you keep bringing up your religion in order to avoid talking about the KCA. It feels like bait and switch, like maybe you never intended to talk about the KCA but rather intended to use the KCA thing as a way to get me interested in your old god.
You have a different idea about the God of theism.
My view: The gods of theists are the gods of theism.
Thus the conflict. Hence our back and forth reasoning to address the conflict. The God I presented the KCA to support is not in conflict with the KCA.
The conflict, as I understand it, is that I want to talk about the KCA and you don't.
What would it take? I can stipulate that you believe in your god or gods. I can stipulate that you think your god or gods don't conflict with the KCA.
Would that help? What would it take to get you to actually talk about the KCA?
The KCA argues from the universe’s deduced cause to a God that is transcendent, supernatural, timeless sans creation, immaterial, spaceless, nonphysical, powerful, intelligent and personal creator.
P1: Things that begin have causes.
P2: The universe (or a part of it which doesn't include gods) began.
C: Therefore, that part of the universe had a cause.
That's the KCA. That's the whole of it. There is no mention of transcendence etc. To talk about that stuff is to change the subject.
Those are
different arguments. And, if I understand you, you can't get to those arguments until you've shown that the KCA works. They
follow the KCA. The KCA comes first.
So why aren't you willing to talk about the KCA? If you can't support the KCA, you'll never get to the rest of your arguments.
And it not conflict as it is with your god.
I don't have a god. I don't believe in any gods. I believe there are no gods.
More to the point, I believe there are no good arguments for believing in gods.
The KCA comes to mind. I think it's indefensible. Would you like to talk about the KCA?
If you want the argument to reason to some other god then the KCA would not apply. Heck….. I don’t believe in your god either.
I don't understand that. I'm having trouble parsing it. Do you suggest that my objection to the KCA is related to some particular gods? I repudiate that.
My position is not that the KCA doesn't work for some particular category of gods. My position is that the KCA doesn't work at all.
So we began our discussion in the context of me providing evidence and reasoning for why MY God exists.
Your god doesn't interest me.
I began that in the form of the KCA.
The KCA does interest me. Let's talk about that.
But
That was where we didn’t realize that we missed each other. Just what God I was saying existed and you were saying I needed to defend.
You don't need to defend a god. You could talk about the KCA.
You had a different god in mind then I did.
No.
We thought we were talking about the same God but we were not. I’m not trying to defend your god with the KCA, because I do not believe that your god exists.
So maybe we could put "my" god aside and talk about the KCA.
I stipulate that the god you attribute to me does not exist.
Since we've agreed on that, maybe we can go on to some other subject, like for instance the KCA.
You asked me to defend my God,
No. I don't give fig for that topic.
You have insisted on teaching me about your god as if the alternative (talking about the KCA) is unpalatable.
but you are unwilling to let me do that.
Defend the KCA. I don't care about your god.
You are insisting I must argue for a your god a god that begins to exist.
Jumping Jehoshaphat!
We agreed on a definition of "begin." Then you described a god which,
according to our agreed definition, begins.
You are supposed to see that you contradicted yourself, and so backpedal. You should offer an alternative definition of "begin." I will happily stipulate to your definition.
Then I'll point out that, according to your new definition, it isn't just your gods that don't begin. It's everything.
Nothing begins.
Then you try to use one definition to show that your god doesn't begin, but you'll switch to the other definition to show that other things do begin. So then I'll point out that you are equivocating, changing the definition of "begin" between premise and conclusion, thus rendering the KCA invalid.
I further point out that the KCA requires this equivocation in order to even seem plausible. Equivocation is the heart of the KCA.
Then you offer a new definition of "begin," and I agree to that, and we go around again, any number of times, but always winding up back at the same place.
-
That's the traditional way of discussing the KCA, but you won't even start.
I never asked you to defend a begun god, or any god. I don't care about any specific god. I did point out that you contradict yourself when you
call your god unbegun while defining "begin" in a way that makes your god begun. This was not an invitation to discuss old Greek gods; it was an invitation to talk about the KCA.
Your insistence of this seems based upon your conception that the eternal is limited to time.
You've explained that you don't mean that. That's not what "eternal" means in your argument.
You won't say what it does mean, but we are past the point where I think you meant that your gods existed before time.
Thus god began to exist. That is your view of things. And hence the lengthy discussion.
The lengthy discussion is because you want to talk about some particular god that people "have always agreed with."
I have provided reasoning and recognized definition that demonstrates that time is a subset of the eternal, because time began to exist and thus its eternal cause had to be timeless.
I don't agree with any of that.
That is the God that I provided the KCA as argument for. The KCA does not argue to a god that begins to exist. It would be flat out unreasonable to do so.
We wouldn't want to be unreasonable.
If I stipulate that your god is unbegun, is it still okay for me to point out that -- according to our agreed definition of "begin" -- your god began?
So I admit the KCA cannot defend your version of the god.
I don't have a version of god.
But
The KCA is evidence and reasoning that the God (The God of the philosophers, classical theism) exists.
Your thoughts?
If you think the KCA is able to survive scrutiny, why don't we talk about the KCA?