Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Kalam

dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 6:36:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 5:57:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Has any atheist ever disproved the Kalam cosmological argument without resorting to logical fallacies?

Google "refuting kalam cosmological argument".
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 7:45:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 5:57:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Has any atheist ever disproved the Kalam cosmological argument without resorting to logical fallacies?

Yes, because it's the argument itself that is based on a logical fallacy - special pleading.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 8:09:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 6:36:17 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/24/2014 5:57:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Has any atheist ever disproved the Kalam cosmological argument without resorting to logical fallacies?

Google "refuting kalam cosmological argument".

So that's a "no" then.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 8:09:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 7:45:51 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 8/24/2014 5:57:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Has any atheist ever disproved the Kalam cosmological argument without resorting to logical fallacies?

Yes, because it's the argument itself that is based on a logical fallacy - special pleading.

Where does the Kalam commit the logical fallacy of special pleading?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 8:26:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 5:57:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Has any atheist ever disproved the Kalam cosmological argument without resorting to logical fallacies?

The entire argument is a logical fallacy.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

The law of causality is a known law of the universe. You are talking about something that would necessarily be external to the universe, so the law does not necessarily apply.

2. The universe began to exist.

We don't know that this statement is true. The big bang model does not exclude the possibility that the universe always existed in some form.

3. The universe has a cause.

That depends on how you define cause. The simplicity of this statement suggests that even if the universe came from nothing, then nothing would be the cause. That is not what the argument declares to have solved. And getting from "cause" to "God"... that's a whole other problem.

Not one piece of the argument stands.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 10:51:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 8:09:05 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/24/2014 6:36:17 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/24/2014 5:57:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Has any atheist ever disproved the Kalam cosmological argument without resorting to logical fallacies?

Google "refuting kalam cosmological argument".

So that's a "no" then.

Good, you're playing your agent provocateur role well.
Keep it up.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 11:05:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 10:51:10 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/24/2014 8:09:05 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/24/2014 6:36:17 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/24/2014 5:57:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Has any atheist ever disproved the Kalam cosmological argument without resorting to logical fallacies?

Google "refuting kalam cosmological argument".

So that's a "no" then.

Good, you're playing your agent provocateur role well.

I'm not playing.

Keep it up.

I'll keep being provocative until you answer me rather than resorting to the logical fallacy of argument ad google.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 11:21:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 11:05:01 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

I'm not playing.

I've seen enough of your posts to know that you are not interested in answers. You only want to needle and tease. I note that you answered me first instead of a more serious response to your provocation just above. Typical.

Begone troll.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 11:26:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 11:21:38 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/24/2014 11:05:01 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

I'm not playing.

I've seen enough of your posts to know that you are not interested in answers. You only want to needle and tease. I note that you answered me first instead of a more serious response to your provocation just above. Typical.

Begone troll.

You're right, I'm a troll because I'm not an atheist bigot like yourself. Good job Sherlock.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 3:39:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 11:35:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
Troll does not like being exposed.
Resorts to insults.
So predictable.

Im predictable and i proud of it!! you sherlock
Never fart near dog
Rosessence
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 3:52:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 11:35:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
Troll does not like being exposed.
Resorts to insults.
So predictable.

I think it is more of a trolling to get involved in discussions that you actually have no interest in. What a person got to do with discussing omniscience when he knows for sure that there is no god? If not trolling perhaps he loves us so much and wants us to see the truth? :-)
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 3:59:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 3:52:29 AM, Rosessence wrote:
At 8/24/2014 11:35:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
Troll does not like being exposed.
Resorts to insults.
So predictable.

I think it is more of a trolling to get involved in discussions that you actually have no interest in.

But I do have an interest (obviously).

What a person got to do with discussing omniscience when he knows for sure that there is no god?

You mean people can't discuss concepts they don't necessarily accept? Really?

You had better tell creationists who keep railing against evolution. Lol.

If not trolling perhaps he loves us so much and wants us to see the truth? :-)

That's it!
Rosessence
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 4:38:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 3:59:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/25/2014 3:52:29 AM, Rosessence wrote:
At 8/24/2014 11:35:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
Troll does not like being exposed.
Resorts to insults.
So predictable.

I think it is more of a trolling to get involved in discussions that you actually have no interest in.

But I do have an interest (obviously).

What a person got to do with discussing omniscience when he knows for sure that there is no god?

You mean people can't discuss concepts they don't necessarily accept? Really?

You had better tell creationists who keep railing against evolution. Lol.

If not trolling perhaps he loves us so much and wants us to see the truth? :-)

That's it!

Ok. :-)
So try to start with a fresh intention, clean your perceptions, give it a possibility of truth that perhaps love is mutual.

There were times i read a paragraph a hundred times because i had trust in love. How much trust you have in your loving that you can skip a sentence because it sounds difficult to understand at the time ? :-)
The weird thing is this, the answer to all questions you have interest in is given a million times and there is really nothing new we can hear if we dont clear our perceptions.untill then We just keep dwelling in a strict prison and invite others in, that's all.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 5:10:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 4:38:02 AM, Rosessence wrote:

Ok. :-)
So try to start with a fresh intention, clean your perceptions, give it a possibility of truth that perhaps love is mutual.

There were times i read a paragraph a hundred times because i had trust in love. How much trust you have in your loving that you can skip a sentence because it sounds difficult to understand at the time ? :-)
The weird thing is this, the answer to all questions you have interest in is given a million times and there is really nothing new we can hear if we dont clear our perceptions.untill then We just keep dwelling in a strict prison and invite others in, that's all.

Sorry, but an emotive appeal is wasted on me. It's not the way I roll. God, if he exists, made me wholly rational and highly skeptical. I'm not caught up in any pre-conceptions. Far from it. If a theist could provide a single compelling piece of evidence for their beliefs, I would have to reconsider. No problem. However, appeals to an emotional response are an admission of failure on your part before you even start. You know that.

And we are way off-topic. :-)
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 5:13:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Without 'resorting' to fallacies? If the argument is a logical fallacy then it is unsound. End of story. And usually the way the argument is defended leads to a fallacy of sweeping generalization/composition.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 7:33:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 5:57:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Has any atheist ever disproved the Kalam cosmological argument without resorting to logical fallacies?

Probably lots. It's not a particularly good argument to begin with.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 7:56:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 5:57:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Has any atheist ever disproved the Kalam cosmological argument without resorting to logical fallacies?

If something begins to exist..blah..blah..blah..blah
My invisible friend didn't begin to exist.
Argument over.

Ya think?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 12:25:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 5:57:28 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Has any atheist ever disproved the Kalam cosmological argument without resorting to logical fallacies?

The first premise is flawed.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause"

If it is talking about begins to exist ex materia, you only have to look at quantum physics to see that is false.

If it is talking about beginning to exist ex nihilo, then there are 2 problems. We do not know if it would require a cause or not (so the first premise is using argument from ignorance) and the only thing that began to exist ex nihilo is the universe. That makes the argument circular.

1. The universe has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

The KCA is flawed from the first premise.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Rosessence
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 2:15:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 5:10:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/25/2014 4:38:02 AM, Rosessence wrote:

Ok. :-)
So try to start with a fresh intention, clean your perceptions, give it a possibility of truth that perhaps love is mutual.

There were times i read a paragraph a hundred times because i had trust in love. How much trust you have in your loving that you can skip a sentence because it sounds difficult to understand at the time ? :-)
The weird thing is this, the answer to all questions you have interest in is given a million times and there is really nothing new we can hear if we dont clear our perceptions.untill then We just keep dwelling in a strict prison and invite others in, that's all.

Sorry, but an emotive appeal is wasted on me. It's not the way I roll. God, if he exists, made me wholly rational and highly skeptical. I'm not caught up in any pre-conceptions. Far from it. If a theist could provide a single compelling piece of evidence for their beliefs, I would have to reconsider. No problem. However, appeals to an emotional response are an admission of failure on your part before you even start. You know that.

And we are way off-topic. :-)

When you are skeptical your skepticism ought to include yourself. So perhaps you can understand mutual love in explanation is more rational than emotive.:-) after all it was you who approved that it was out of love, that what made your motive. You could have picked a more rational choice if mine didnt suit you.

I dont think we can get off topic When we are writing under kelam and talking with people who have no knowledge of it. It is a must we start from ground zero, understanding yourself.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 8:47:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 2:15:10 PM, Rosessence wrote:

When you are skeptical your skepticism ought to include yourself.

Great sounding phrase. What does it mean, that I should doubt myself?

So perhaps you can understand mutual love in explanation is more rational than emotive.:-)

How so?

after all it was you who approved that it was out of love, that what made your motive.

More like compassion I would say (and I was only half serious).

You could have picked a more rational choice if mine didnt suit you.

Feeling empathy for your fellow man is quite rational. It is the foundation of the golden rule.

I dont think we can get off topic When we are writing under kelam and talking with people who have no knowledge of it. It is a must we start from ground zero, understanding yourself.

Please yourself.