Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

Not my problem.

[Gordon]

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.

I think you need to do some work on understanding fallacies, Vlad: whether an argument results in a true conclusion or not is irrelevant to whether or not the form of the argument being used is fallacious, and if it is then the argument can be dispensed with - so we can simply dispense with the KCA.

If you want to argue for what the KCA concludes then you need a different (and non-fallacious) argument.

P.S. 'All ball bearings are ball bearings' isn't an argument.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

I beg your pardon

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

Ooh you are awful, but I like you.

[BeRational]

I beg your pardon
Ooh you are awful, but I like you.

Can you answer the simple question?

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

It is a yes or no answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you need to do some work on understanding fallacies, Vlad: whether an argument results in a true conclusion or not is irrelevant to whether or not the form of the argument being used is fallacious, and if it is then the argument can be dispensed with - so we can simply dispense with the KCA.

If you want to argue for what the KCA concludes then you need a different (and non-fallacious) argument.

P.S. 'All ball bearings are ball bearings' isn't an argument.

I asked for Hillsides demolition of the Kalam Cosmological argument...That the universe has a cause. He hasn't done it and the premise everything that has a beginning has a cause has not been demolished.

The situation is that Hillside has said the universe began, railed back on that, suggested I was wrong in talking about origins yet suggested I consult Hawking on the origin of the universe and all the time we know we cannot finally demolish the premises or the conclusions of the Kalam cosmological argument since we don't know whether the universe had a beginning.

Unless you are arguing that the universe could not have had a beginning because the KCA is begging the question, of course.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you answer the simple question?

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

It is a yes or no answer.

Bonkers.

[BeRational]

Bonkers.

This is really simple, and shows you previous errors quite clearly.

Why can you not answer this simple question?

[Gordon]

I asked for Hillsides demolition of the Kalam Cosmological argument...That the universe has a cause. He hasn't done it and the premise everything that has a beginning has a cause has not been demolished.

The situation is that Hillside has said the universe began, railed back on that, suggested I was wrong in talking about origins yet suggested I consult Hawking on the origin of the universe and all the time we know we cannot finally demolish the premises or the conclusions of the Kalam cosmological argument since we don't know whether the universe had a beginning.

Unless you are arguing that the universe could not have had a beginning because the KCA is begging the question, of course.

As ever you don't understand what is being said to you here: the KCA can be 'demolished' because it is fallacious: in effect it fails as an argument. This, however, says nothing about whether or not anything that begins to exist has a cause - but if you want to argue that position then you need another (and non-fallacious) argument to do so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is really simple, and shows you previous errors quite clearly.

Why can you not answer this simple question?

what errors.
Antitheism had a little wankfest verbal game going on which it thought did for theism because it sounded clever. You are merely indulging in the same thing. You have admitted that you do not know whether the universe had a beginning or whether it has been around for ever. You have admitted that you do not know whether everything which has a beginning has a cause. That puts you therefore exactly in the same position as myself. And yet you and Gordon are trumping up some extra dimension on which you think I can be caught out on and in your desperation are asking me to say whether I believe your lawn has an equal or odd number of blades of grass?

I think we've arrived at the heart of the antitheist tragedy don't you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As ever you don't understand what is being said to you here: the KCA can be 'demolished' because it is fallacious:

Yes Gordon but what are the consequences of that since the premises nor the conclusion seem to be proved to be wrong or right?

[Gordon]

Yes Gordon but what are the consequences of that since the premises nor the conclusion seem to be proved to be wrong or right?

I can't see any consequences other than noting that the KCA is a bad argument: if you want to argue for, or against, the premises and conclusion of the KCA then you'll need a better argument.

[BeRational]

what errors.
Antitheism had a little wankfest verbal game going on which it thought did for theism because it sounded clever. You are merely indulging in the same thing. You have admitted that you do not know whether the universe had a beginning or whether it has been around for ever. You have admitted that you do not know whether everything which has a beginning has a cause. That puts you therefore exactly in the same position as myself. And yet you and Gordon are trumping up some extra dimension on which you think I can be caught out on and in your desperation are asking me to say whether I believe your lawn has an equal or odd number of blades of grass?

I think we've arrived at the heart of the antitheist tragedy don't you?

It's a simple question, but you fail to answer yet again.

Why not just answer this very simple question. It will help you with logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can't see any consequences other than noting that the KCA is a bad argument:

Got there in the end.

More grist to the mill

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43976977

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

1) It is impossible now the universe is in existence to demonstrate that even if anything did apparently pop out of nothing that it didn't in fact come from somewhere else in the universe. Therefore that it has a beginning could not be demonstrated.
It would not qualify as something that we knew whether it had a beginning and would therefore not disprove or prove the initial premise.
The challenge here then is to name something which has a beginning but has no cause.
2) contentious since this is not observed and the universe could be eternal but the challenge is to name something in the universe which is eternal.
3) The challenge here is to name something in the universe which creates itself even if we apparently observe things popping out of nothing we cannot demonstrate that they have not come from somewhere else.
4)Since that which is created is the universe and nothing within it is not conclusively observed not to have a cause then whatever created it is not the universe.
5) The creator then exists.

I suspect there are unresolved elements so perhaps posters can add to the analysis.

[wigginhall]

I think that Sean Carroll, discussing the first premise, said 'or maybe not.'   How on earth could I know about everything that begins to exist?

[Nearly Sane]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

1) It is impossible now the universe is in existence to demonstrate that even if anything did apparently pop out of nothing that it didn't in fact come from somewhere else in the universe. Therefore that it has a beginning could not be demonstrated.
It would not qualify as something that we knew whether it had a beginning and would therefore not disprove or prove the initial premise.
The challenge here then is to name something which has a beginning but has no cause.
2) contentious since this is not observed and the universe could be eternal but the challenge is to name something in the universe which is eternal.
3) The challenge here is to name something in the universe which creates itself even if we apparently observe things popping out of nothing we cannot demonstrate that they have not come from somewhere else.
4)Since that which is created is the universe and nothing within it is not conclusively observed not to have a cause then whatever created it is not the universe.
5) The creator then exists.

I suspect there are unresolved elements so perhaps posters can add to the analysis.

Leaving aside that the KCA doesn't have steps 4 and 5 which you have added here, the issue wit one isn't about whether the universe began to exist but whether you can demonstrate the validity of the premise. In the absence of that demonstration the entire argument falls.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Leaving aside that the KCA doesn't have steps 4 and 5 which you have added here, the issue wit one isn't about whether the universe began to exist but whether you can demonstrate the validity of the premise. In the absence of that demonstration the entire argument falls.

That sounds like just Vlad Obsession plain and simple.
I thought we had agreed that we can neither prove nor disprove the validity of the premise.

[Nearly Sane]

That sounds like just Vlad Obsession plain and simple.
I thought we had agreed that we can neither prove nor disprove the validity of the premise.

And until it is demonstrated  as being true it's a bad argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And until it is demonstrated  as being true it's a bad argument.

And i'm disputing that where exactly?

[Gordon]

That sounds like just Vlad Obsession plain and simple.
I thought we had agreed that we can neither prove nor disprove the validity of the premise.

You need to be careful with the term 'prove', Vlad - and since I've taken the view that the KCA is a fallacious argument then I don't agree that it can either 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. As I said: you need a better argument than the KCA.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You need to be careful with the term 'prove', Vlad - and since I've taken the view that the KCA is a fallacious argument then I don't agree that it can either 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. As I said: you need a better argument than the KCA.

Can we therefore have the good argument then for naturalism one that doesn't depend on observation or probability.

[Nearly Sane]

And i'm disputing that where exactly?

Good, glad to see you think the KCA has been demolished.

[Nearly Sane]

Can we therefore have the good argument then for naturalism one that doesn't depend on observation or probability.

Ah a non sequitur!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good, glad to see you think the KCA has been demolished.

But the premises and conclusions haven't. Not much of a victory is it.

[Gordon]

Can we therefore have the good argument then for naturalism one that doesn't depend on observation or probability.

Nice try at diversion by changing the subject - but far too obvious, Vlad, and I for one won't bite. So: back to the KCA, do you now accept that the KCA is a bad argument?