Kalam cosmological argument

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I disagree with the statement, "the Kalam cosmological argument succeeds." This I did based on the successful arguments against it already given in this thread. If new evidence is introduced, it should be offered in context with the thread. Something like, Dr Turek refutes point X with counter point Y (see video link @ 3:22).

Giving the counter cla ...[text shortened]... ike a constructive debate in which both sides are willing to do the leg work to make their case.

Oh, I see.
So "lazy" then.
Makes sense.

I sat through a lengthy "lecture" by the hilarious Sam Harris on his absurd conjecture that free will doesn't exist.
If someone had offered the video and said go to 4:20, the audience would have missed all the set up which made that particular joke--- and the performance was loaded with them--- so funny.
Sometimes, you need to watch the whole thing, in other words.

Originally posted by C Hess
No, I seriously don't see anything wrong with this argument, and I
desperately need to find something wrong with it. The only thing I can think
of is that maybe not every beginning is causal, but I have no idea how to
argue that, so I hoped maybe some atheist friends might have something.

Or, maybe it's causal but the cause doesn't have to be some kind of
intelligence, maybe?

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the latter one.

Why go with one or the other if you don't know?
Kelly

Originally posted by Penguin
I think part of the problem is with premise 1. If you look up 'Quantum Vacuum', it has been discovered that particles can pop into existence with no cause at all. So premise 1 is wrong and therefore 3 does not necessarily follow. However, my understanding of this is flakey at best. If you rephrase the question in a science-forum-friendly form and post it the ...[text shortened]... who might be interested in our worship or able to offer us any kind of afterlife.

--- Penguin

I like that "particles can pop into existence with no cause at all..." that is
a hell of a statement of faith in my opinion. It could be just as true that they
always existed but we are not able to monitor them, and they come with a
cause yet we don't understand. Not knowing does have limits on how we
should frame our statements of facts.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Oh, I see.
So "lazy" then.
Makes sense.

I sat through a lengthy "lecture" by the hilarious Sam Harris on his absurd conjecture that free will doesn't exist.
If someone had offered the video and said go to 4:20, the audience would have missed all the set up which made that particular joke--- and the performance was loaded with them--- so funny.
Sometimes, you need to watch the whole thing, in other words.

If anyone is lazy, it is those who will not use the information already posted in the thread, but instead give a link saying, "Here, look at this video I found. It totally agrees with my position."

They won't even type out one or two salient points from the video. No. They expect the audience to go through the whole friggin' 2 hours just to get to that one bit they happened to like.

I'm fed up with argumentation by mere link. I'm not going to do all the work so some lazy theist can sit there and cut-and-paste his way thru an argument.

------

Yes. I read that thread where you ended up making an ass of yourself, thinking you were making an ass of Sam Harris. Good stuff.

C Hess and Others,
Why do you believe in a "guess work scientific argument" for cosmological origin which has no scientific proof? Why are you "dependent" on what science has not proven to be right?

Originally posted by KellyJay
It could be just as true that they always existed but we are not able to monitor them,....

If that were the case, then they wouldn't be the same particles, because most of the particles in question can be monitored.

and they come with a cause yet we don't understand.
That I actually agree with. Quantum mechanics does not actually rule out a cause. It doesn't however require a cause either, so anyone who claims that a cause is known to be required is wrong, and cannot base an argument on it.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
No, I still have not watched the video. So I have no specific agreements or disagreements yet.

Thanks for your honesty then.

I have already sat through intended rebuttals from physicist Lawrence Krauss. Intend to do so again sometime.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you quote me on that? It doesn't sound like something I would say, and you have a bad habit of attributing to me things I never said.

Concerning my writing that twhitehead said

1.) Science can explain everything.

Zahlanzi and twhitehead on the thread Can anyone ...

not everything that is real can be explained scientifically.

Yes, it can.

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
C Hess and Others,
Why do you believe in a "guess work scientific argument" for cosmological origin which has no scientific proof? Why are you "dependent" on what science has not proven to be right?

Why do you believe in a "guess work religious argument" for cosmological
origin which has no scientific proof? Why are you "dependent" on what
science has not proven to be right?

Originally posted by sonship
Concerning my writing that twhitehead said

[b] 1.) Science can explain everything.

Zahlanzi and twhitehead on the thread Can anyone ...

not everything that is real can be explained scientifically.

Yes, it can.

[/b]

You are missing out a load of context.

Twhitehead was not claiming that science has an explanation for everything.

What he was [correctly] saying is that everything real is open to being explained
scientifically.

Ie nothing real is outside the purview of science.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
If anyone is lazy, it is those who will not use the information already posted in the thread, but instead give a link saying, "Here, look at this video I found. It totally agrees with my position."

They won't even type out one or two salient points from the video. No. They expect the audience to go through the whole friggin' 2 hours just to get to ...[text shortened]... u ended up making an ass of yourself, thinking you were making an ass of Sam Harris. Good stuff.

They won't even type out one or two salient points from the video. No. They expect the audience to go through the whole friggin' 2 hours just to get to that one bit they happened to like.
Boo-hoo.
The argument covers vast areas of knowledge yet you expect the dissertations to be pithy one-liners?
Granted, nearly everything can be simplified (although you wouldn't know it to read LJ's polemics), but when the specifics or technicalities of complex issues are at hand, ground work must be laid.

I'm not going to do all the work so some lazy theist can sit there and cut-and-paste his way thru an argument.
Hopefully you'll have the same disdain for the lazy atheists in kind.

Yes. I read that thread where you ended up making an ass of yourself, thinking you were making an ass of Sam Harris. Good stuff.
Well, of course I did!
Despite the inability to challenge any of the refutations offered, it is assumed that the theist position is always that of an ass.
The atheists cannot bear to have their pet beliefs--- or the prophets who preach them--- challenged, no matter how sound the argument, how factual the charge.
Once you've determined the challenger's originating beliefs, anything which follows will be rejected on sundry grounds, the author belittled and marginalized.

As you say: good stuff.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are missing out a load of context.

Twhitehead was not claiming that science has an explanation for everything.

What he was [correctly] saying is that everything real is open to being explained
scientifically.

Ie nothing real is outside the purview of science.

Kinda right, but also kinda wrong.

There is much in this world and in the universe that science (i.e., our knowledge) has either not yet made clear or in some cases, even knows of to make clear.

Some things are just beyond the ability of even our greatest minds to comprehend, now or ever.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Kinda right, but also kinda wrong.

There is much in this world and in the universe that science (i.e., our knowledge) has either not yet made clear or in some cases, even knows of to make clear.

Some things are just beyond the ability of even our greatest minds to comprehend, now or ever.

How do you know how powerful the greatest minds of the future will be?

Also, again, being in the purview of science, and explainable by science,
doesn't mean we have currently explained it.

People in the past said many of the things we currently know were un-knowable.

They were wrong.

Do you have any compelling argument as to why you will not also be proven to
be wrong?

Originally posted by googlefudge
How do you know how powerful the greatest minds of the future will be?

Also, again, being in the purview of science, and explainable by science,
doesn't mean we have currently explained it.

People in the past said many of the things we currently know were un-knowable.

They were wrong.

Do you have any compelling argument as to why you will not also be proven to
be wrong?

I can always be proven wrong.
In fact, I pretty much count on it.

My confidence that man will never totally comprehend God is based upon what has happened up to this point; namely, we're not even close to really understanding more than the most basic of things about God.

Hell, we can't really even explain the love a parent has for their child, and this is one of the most base aspects of the human existence.
Or, on a dark note: death.
What in the world is that?!?

Originally posted by googlefudge
How do you know how powerful the greatest minds of the future will be?

Also, again, being in the purview of science, and explainable by science,
doesn't mean we have currently explained it.

People in the past said many of the things we currently know were un-knowable.

They were wrong.

Do you have any compelling argument as to why you will not also be proven to
be wrong?

I believe that some things require revelations from God to be knowable.