Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

KCA is wrong in a paragraph

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 4:50:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Basically, post your answers to the KCA that are less than either a paragraph or ~500 characters! Most concise answers which criticise the most fronts wins! P.S Remember to explain the flaws, i.e. saying its a composition fallacy means nothing.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 4:57:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the the universe is defined as, "The whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated", God would surely have to be a part of this. The universe did not necessarily have a start.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 5:03:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1) Unwarranted assumption that first cause = god.
2) Justification for god's non-caused nature abandons causality premise, so why presume causality for the universe?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 5:46:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 5:03:43 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
1) Unwarranted assumption that first cause = god.
KCA only logicaly asserts a necessary cause. It does not assert what the cause is.

Evidence applied after the logical argument asserts we have more warrant and evidence to believe God than not.

That would be the Teleological argument that asserts designer.
Historical religions that assert a God claim.

2) Justification for god's non-caused nature abandons causality premise, so why presume causality for the universe?

This was already taught to you. God is a metaphysical Mind. Like number values, a metaphysical mind is outside of a causal need.

Have you ever read any of the defeneses of KCA?
If so why do you still assert these two above statements?
They are obviously false and only two athiests attempted to use them against Craig over a decade ago that I am aware of.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 3:52:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 5:46:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/17/2011 5:03:43 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
1) Unwarranted assumption that first cause = god.
KCA only logicaly asserts a necessary cause. It does not assert what the cause is.

Evidence applied after the logical argument asserts we have more warrant and evidence to believe God than not.

That would be the Teleological argument that asserts designer.
Historical religions that assert a God claim.

KCA logically asserts that there is a necessary substance. Unfortunately, both Hume and Kant have shown why the character of "necessary" is redundant and false.
2) Justification for god's non-caused nature abandons causality premise, so why presume causality for the universe?

This was already taught to you. God is a metaphysical Mind. Like number values, a metaphysical mind is outside of a causal need.

Yes, and numbers, as W.L.Craig so eloquently points out, cannot affect the universe because they are abstract (or metaphysical using your term). So why is God different? We are still creating exceptions and abandonment of agreed suppositions.
Have you ever read any of the defeneses of KCA?
If so why do you still assert these two above statements?
They are obviously false and only two athiests attempted to use them against Craig over a decade ago that I am aware of.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 5:00:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 3:52:50 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/17/2011 5:46:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/17/2011 5:03:43 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
1) Unwarranted assumption that first cause = god.
KCA only logicaly asserts a necessary cause. It does not assert what the cause is.

Evidence applied after the logical argument asserts we have more warrant and evidence to believe God than not.

That would be the Teleological argument that asserts designer.
Historical religions that assert a God claim.

KCA logically asserts that there is a necessary substance. Unfortunately, both Hume and Kant have shown why the character of "necessary" is redundant and false.

I will agree that you could use the term substance.

If that was so refuted, Craig would not still be using it.
Each refutation was invalid.

Here is a link showing that a finite causal objection by Hume was invalidated the moment it was spoken.
http://midwestapologetics.org...

Kant's rejection if I recall was merely a complaint that a necessary must be proven to exist. I do not know how this is a refutation of Logic.

2) Justification for god's non-caused nature abandons causality premise, so why presume causality for the universe?

This was already taught to you. God is a metaphysical Mind. Like number values, a metaphysical mind is outside of a causal need.

Yes, and numbers, as W.L.Craig so eloquently points out, cannot affect the universe because they are abstract (or metaphysical using your term). So why is God different? We are still creating exceptions and abandonment of agreed suppositions.

The reason numbers did not generate the universe is not because they are abstract but because they do not create anything.
However, one non-physical abstract concept is known to create and that is a mind.

Craig has described as much in his debates.

Have you ever read any of the defeneses of KCA?
If so why do you still assert these two above statements?
They are obviously false and only two athiests attempted to use them against Craig over a decade ago that I am aware of.