Quote (Scaly @ Jan 4 2017 05:24pm)

The Kalam Cosmological argument is bullshit. I reject it's premise and I also reject the way Craig uses it to prove god.

Here's his version -

Everything that exists has a cause
The Universe exists
Therefore the Universe has a cause
That cause can be nothing other than the God of Abraham and Isaac.

Firstly I reject the premise. We cannot know whether the universe has a cause. Perhaps it always existed.

But forget that. It doesn't matter. I can concede that point. Let's look at the conclusion that he does not explicitly state but implies in every one of his arguments. What the fuck is that? Even if we could prove the universe had a cause how do we get from there to an intelligent creator? and even farther to the God he happens to worship (or says he does).

It's fucking bullshit is what it is and he will gish-gallop through this argument nearly every fucking time he has a serious debate. He knows it's bullshit. He's had it explained to him. He doesn't care. Because the plebs eat it up and buy his books. He's a fucking con-man. A snake oil salesman selling reassurance to idiot believers. All his bullshit and bluster about his fucking doctorates and the journals he's contributed to. Nobody serious in the philosophy field knows who the fuck he is. Know why? He doesn't submit papers to mainstream academic journals. He submits to Christian 'journals' of 'Christian science'. He's had 200 papers published (according to him, cba to check the numbers) and been cited like 20 times in as many years. He's a fucking joke - waving round his paper-thin academic 'credentials' like he's some fucking big-time revolutionary thinker when all he does is take other people's arguments and make them sound posh and complicated and then shoehorn them into an argument for the existence of god. It's bollocks and I hope he ends up impotent and riddled with syphilis.

Quote (Scaly @ Jan 6 2017 03:23pm)

I'd feel pretty bad if I was making my living by lying to people in such a way that it entirely distorts their worldview.

Might compile that Christian apologist thread now tbh. Got nothing better to do while the gf is at work.

Quote (JohnMiller92 @ 7 Jan 2017 22:01)

I really hope this is a copy-pasta.



I'd feel pretty bad too if my entire life was centered around being triggered by William Lane Craig all day. Good lord you make atheists look so bad.

Quote (Scaly @ Jan 4 2017 08:24pm)

The Kalam Cosmological argument is bullshit. I reject it's premise and I also reject the way Craig uses it to prove god.

Here's his version -

Everything that exists has a cause
The Universe exists
Therefore the Universe has a cause
That cause can be nothing other than the God of Abraham and Isaac.

Quote (Voyaging @ 8 Jan 2017 17:04)

You have it wrong from the very first premise lol.

If that were one of the premises then it would apply to God.

No wonder you think he's such an idiot when your understanding of his arguments are so distorted.

Quote (Voyaging @ Jan 8 2017 11:04am)

You have it wrong from the very first premise lol.

If that were one of the premises then it would apply to God.

No wonder you think he's such an idiot when your understanding of his arguments are so distorted.

Quote (Scaly @ Jan 8 2017 12:17pm)

Well enlighten me then. Instead of just deriding perhaps you could actually put forth an argument? I'm open to being proven wrong. Though I believe what you're referring to is the original argument - i.e. 'everything that has a beginning has a cause'.

The first premise - however disagreeable it is - is still irrelevant to the conclusion that the cause must be god. That's the bullshit I railed against. That's the intellectual dishonesty. I also don't think Craig is an idiot. I think he's a malicious con-artist.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jan 8 2017 12:44pm)

Something which causes the universe need not be god.

Quote (Voyaging @ 8 Jan 2017 17:59)

Why should I have to teach you when you could just Google the argument before you write a whole post against the wrong argument? That's just silly.

Yes that is what I was referring to and of course it's relevant to the conclusion. Big difference between everything that exists and everything that begins to exist. If the premise was the former the argument would be invalid because then God would also require a cause.

Of course that cause must be God because that's how the argument defines God, as the first cause.



Yes is it need be, that's how the argument defines God.

Quote (Voyaging @ Jan 8 2017 11:59am)

Why should I have to teach you when you could just Google the argument before you write a whole post against the wrong argument? That's just silly.

Yes that is what I was referring to and of course it's relevant to the conclusion. Big difference between everything that exists and everything that begins to exist. If the premise was the former the argument would be invalid because then God would also require a cause.

Of course that cause must be God because that's how the argument defines God, as the first cause.

Yes is it need be, that's how the argument defines God.

Quote (duffman316 @ Jan 8 2017 12:30pm)

eeey, we're getting back to our pard roots :bouncy:

did a quick lookup on this

Premise one: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause."[edit]
Craig defends the first premise as follows:[20][21]

Rational intuition: He states that the first premise is self-evidently true, being based upon the Causal Principle that "something cannot come into being from nothing", or "Ex nihilo nihil fit", originating from Parmenidean philosophy. He attests that this is a critically important first principle of science.
Reductio ad absurdum: If false, it would be inexplicable why anything and everything does not randomly appear into existence without a cause.
Inductive reasoning from both common experience and scientific evidence, which constantly verifies and never falsifies the truth of the first premise.

i say stuff coming into and out of existence in an empty vacuum (i'm sure our resident physicists will know this in more detail) is sufficient to reject this premise