Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Debate Kalam/Personal Cause of the universe

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2012 10:02:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am looking to debate the Kalam argument, to be more exact to argue against it, which is at least suppose to show that the universe has a personal cause. The version I have in mind is the one used by William Lane Craig.

Suffice to say I would ask you are some one who is familiar with the argument IE: Didn't just Google it 10 seconds ago :)

I propose something like..........

Resolution - The universe has a personal cause

You - Pro

Me - Con

Clothes - optional.

So just send me a message or a debate challenge or something.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 1:07:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So yeah this.......
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 4:49:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When I joined, nearly all religious debates were about Kalam, The Ontological Argument or similar. That seems to have faded, though.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 5:04:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't get it. Are you con the Kalam argument because you don't think the universe has a cause?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 11:46:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 5:04:42 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
I don't get it. Are you con the Kalam argument because you don't think the universe has a cause?

"Personal cause"
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 2:27:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 5:04:42 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
I don't get it. Are you con the Kalam argument because you don't think the universe has a cause?

I am Con the Kalam cause I am skeptical that it establishes the universe has a personal cause.

Sure the Kalam I think only has the conclusion Therefore the universe has a cause. You can add in the further premise.......

4) If the universe has a cause then that cause must be personal

So technicality its Kalam + 1 extra premise.

But most people understood what I mean't I think since I mentioned a personal cause/kalam and William Craig.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 1:12:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/20/2012 10:02:43 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I am looking to debate the Kalam argument, to be more exact to argue against it, which is at least suppose to show that the universe has a personal cause. The version I have in mind is the one used by William Lane Craig.

Suffice to say I would ask you are some one who is familiar with the argument IE: Didn't just Google it 10 seconds ago :)

I propose something like..........

Resolution - The universe has a personal cause

You - Pro

Me - Con

Clothes - optional.

So just send me a message or a debate challenge or something.

I thought he said:
"If time and the universe had a First Cause, that Cause is plausibly personal."

Not that it proves it.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 1:37:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 1:12:10 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
I thought he said:
"If time and the universe had a First Cause, that Cause is plausibly personal."

Not that it proves it.

That is what he says, but his argument suggest otherwise. For example, his disjunctive argument from minds and abstract objects suggest that the cause of the universe must be personal. He says:

"The only entities that can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects like numbers. But abstract objects don"t stand in causal relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be an unembodied mind." http://www.henrycenter.org...

He also claims that a personal being with libertarian freedom is the only way for an atemporal cause to give rise to a temporal effect. In his words:

"There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that"s to say that the cause of the universe"s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time." http://www.henrycenter.org...

I don't know why he says the cause is plausibly personal when his arguments suggest that he thinks it's more than plausible.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle