Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[BeRational]

On what grounds can we reject the idea that everything that has a beginning has a cause?

It is not demonstrated. Simple.

My lawn has an even number of blades of grass.

Do you accept that?

If so why?

[BeRational]

But you have rejected it.

The default position is to NOT accept the claim, until the claim can be demonstrated.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is not demonstrated. Simple.

My lawn has an even number of blades of grass.

Do you accept that?

If so why?

Waffle........... if you finally acknowledge it hasn't been proven to be wrong then you acknowledge that it could be so.

The next place to go is therefore which is more likely?, Everything which has a beginning has a cause or not everything which has a beginning has a cause and the reasons for plumping for one or the other.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The default position is to NOT accept the claim, until the claim can be demonstrated.

To which I have to then ask you to name something which has a beginning which doesn't have a cause.

[BeRational]

To which I have to then ask you to name something which has a beginning which doesn't have a cause.

Not my problem.

I am not making the claim, you are, so you have the burden.

My answer is. I don't know.

[SteveH]

This thread is just going over and over the same ground. If we all stop posting to it, it will finally die a well-deserved death.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not my problem.

But you have accepted the default that not everything which has a beginning has a cause.

Which means that you are against cause and effect.

Do you believe in miracles? Of course you do because you do not believe in cause and effect.

Also you cannot believe in laws of nature.

Or the weight of probability.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not my problem.

I am not making the claim,

You are claiming the default that not everything which has a beginning has a cause.

You therefore have a burden to prove that because this is an either or. Not a it's not that but we don't know if it's the other.

[BeRational]

But you have accepted the default that not everything which has a beginning has a cause.

Which means that you are against cause and effect.

Do you believe in miracles? Of course you do because you do not believe in cause and effect.

Also you cannot believe in laws of nature.

Or the weight of probability.

I have not accepted any position.
I simply do not know.
Those that claim to know, have the demonstrate it.

[Maeght]

This thread is just going over and over the same ground. If we all stop posting to it, it will finally die a well-deserved death.

Or you can just stop reading it and let others carry on posting if they want.

[BeRational]

You are claiming the default that not everything which has a beginning has a cause.

You therefore have a burden to prove that because this is an either or. Not a it's not that but we don't know if it's the other.

I am not claiming that at all.

Why would you think that?

I do not know that everything has a cause.

You claim to know that this is true.

How do you know?

[Gordon]

Why is the first premise definitely incorrect?

Begging the question isn't about the premise(s) being correct - it is about the assuming the conclusion within the premise (either explicitly or implicitly).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You claim to know that this is true.

No, I just asked Bluehillside for a demolition of the Kalam cosmological argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Begging the question isn't about the premise(s) being correct - it is about the assuming the conclusion within the premise (either explicitly or implicitly).

But that is hardly a demolition of the Kalam cosmological argument then is it?

Demolition in this context sounds like hyperbole...don't you think?

[BeRational]

No, I just asked Bluehillside for a demolition of the Kalam cosmological argument.

The premises are not demonstrated, therefore the argument is useless.

The conclusion of the Kalam is that the universe had a cause, but it cannot tell you what the cause was, so it cannot get you to any god(s).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The premises are not demonstrated, therefore the argument is useless.

But you cannot say the premises are not correct but want to assume they aren't.
Again can you name something which has a beginning which does not have a cause?
This is an either or.

[BeRational]

But you cannot say the premises are not correct but want to assume they aren't.
Again can you name something which has a beginning which does not have a cause?
This is an either or.

I do not have to.

YOU have to demonstrate they are correct, as YOU are using an argument that uses them as premises to a conclusion.

I do not claim to know the cause or reason why the universe exists, so I have no burden.

You on the other hand, are offering the Kalam argument as an explanation, so YOU have to defend it and demonstrate it.

[BeRational]

But you cannot say the premises are not correct but want to assume they aren't.
Again can you name something which has a beginning which does not have a cause?
This is an either or.

Again you say I am claiming they are not correct.

Please stop this.

I DO NOT KNOW if they are correct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again you say I am claiming they are not correct.

Please stop this.

I DO NOT KNOW if they are correct.

You said that if the premise could not be demonstrated we had to assume the default position.
What then is the default position in this case?

[BeRational]

You said that if the premise could not be demonstrated we had to assume the default position.
What then is the default position in this case?

The default position is to not accept any claim until it can be demonstrated to be true.

Can you demonstrate the premises you rely on are true?

If not, then they are no use.

[Gordon]

But that is hardly a demolition of the Kalam cosmological argument then is it?

Demolition in this context sounds like hyperbole...don't you think?

Don't be silly, Vlad: begging the question is a fallacy, therefore the KCA is fallacious, therefore it is no more than theobabble.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The default position is to not accept any claim until it can be demonstrated to be true.

So you do not accept Theism but then you do not accept naturalism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly, Vlad: begging the question is a fallacy, therefore the KCA is fallacious, therefore it is no more than theobabble.

I'm not interested in that i'm interested in whether it is true or false or could be.

Is this therefore begging the question?

All ball bearings are ball bearings is begging the question but it happens to be true.

Therefore one cannot say that all things which have a beginning is necessarily false. Therefore we cannot say we have 'demolished' the premise.

[BeRational]

So you do not accept Theism but then you do not accept naturalism?

I accept anything that can be demonstrated.

[BeRational]

I'm not interested in that i'm interested in whether it is true or false or could be.

Is this therefore begging the question?

All ball bearings are ball bearings is begging the question but it happens to be true.

Therefore one cannot say that all things which have a beginning is necessarily false. Therefore we cannot say we have 'demolished' the premise.

Do you believe my lawn has an even number of blades of grass?

If you say "No", can I then assume that you think it has an odd number?

This is the mistake you keep making.

I have not said anything is false, I have just said that it has not been demonstrated as true.