Posted on 08/03/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
The KCA merely states that the universe, because it exists, cannot be infinitely old, nor can it cause itself--that something/someone acted to cause it to come into being.
It states this, it doesn't prove it. It assumes it.
There are no proofs of God.
Tongue in cheek poke at something that Dawkins and others often do. They are probably oversimplifying, but the approach lends itself to arguing in favor of a tautology.
In fact, I would think things would tend to survive unless they hindered survival - a sort of biological inertia.
However, when discussing how traits came to be - as in "the selfish gene" - the argument looks very much like the above. Since it survived, it must be a survival charasteristic. Now we need to develop a story to explain why.
I was unimpressed with the story in "the selfish gene" by the way.
Shalom.
I completely agree with this statement.
I think it has to be a being, and not a thing.
Sauron
I'm sorry, what? So if truth and validity are mutually exclusive - which will be news to logicians everywhere, no doubt - how do you actually achieve this "highest form" of a valid and truthful argument? Is it like squaring the circle, or solving the mystery of where missing socks go when they leave the dryer?
Creationism however, states that the world is only some thousands of years old, and that living creatures were created similar to the way they currently are (such as their genus, a canine animal could have been the ancestor for all the canines--dogs, wolves, dingos, hyenas, etc.). Microevolution (natural selection) tends to witlle away genes; macroevolution would require an addition of genes.
Your posts were spot-on, and motivated me to join in.
Sauron
You are correct.
Because God is outside of this universe, He Himself is not scientifically testable, because we are limited in our scope of observation, and this universe has limitations imposed by natural laws. Hence, He is inherently unknowable, outside of the following:
1. Special revelation.
2. General revelation.
Are you related to str.org? (!)
Mark my words: It will one day come to that, folks.
The Kalam cosmological argument is Islamic in origin. So, according to you, it's authors are condemned.
And BTW, gratuitous condemnation of all those you don't consider Christian noted.
You have mischaracterized or misunderstood. Go back and review the posts. There are a lot of them, we're in the three hundred range now, so you might have missed a few.
I haven't condemned anyone. Yet. (But I'm thinkin' 'bout you.)
You might also take note that you are the only one that has misunderstood.
By the way, I am aware of--and pointed out in a prior post--that the Kalam C.A. is Islamic in origin. I also noted that they were able to more concisely spell it out despite the fact that many more Christian scholars also had bumped into it. Thus, it has historically been credited with the name that it has.
Sauron
Not needed.
I already have one by Irving Copi, and, unlike some, I've actually read it.
It's a good one: I can mail it to you, if you'd like. It might help you with this kind of thinking that you expressed in post #379, where you expressed a belief in "boing theory," which seems indistinguishable from magic.
Sauron
You have mischaracterized or misunderstood.
Really? So what does this mean? "Are you now, or have you ever been, a CHRISTIAN? Mark my words: It will one day come to that, folks." Sounds like at a minimum a thinly veiled warning of some kind to me. Whether intended or not, this is a condemnation.
I haven't condemned anyone. Yet. (But I'm thinkin' 'bout you.)
Logically, you have, unless you'd like to hide behind your rhetoric.
You might also take note that you are the only one that has misunderstood.
Again your logic fails. Just because I am the only one who mentioned it - that is, what you characterized as misunderstood- it doesn't follow that I am the only one who read that meaning in your words.
It states this, it doesn't prove it. It assumes it.
You believe the universe is infinitely old? Uncaused? Both?
There are no proofs of God.
Agree, as explained in #349, supra, since our science lacks the ability to reach outside our own universe and touch Him. We have only the senses/tools/means afforded within the laws of this universe to utilize.
That said, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence--enough to convict God in a court of law--that indicates the presence of an intelligent Creator.
As I've said, if you believe the circumstantial evidence that O.J. Simpson committed murder--and that's all we've got, is circumstantial evidence--people have been convicted based only on circumstantial evidence--then you should also be able to see the myriad forms of circumstantial evidence that we've been living inside an ant farm, and that there's an Ant Farmer out there.
Physics, chemistry, astonomy, biology...all are too "fine-tuned" to be more coincidence.
One astronomer even said (may have been Hoyle) that it appeared that a super-intellect had "monkeyed" with the universe to ensure the creation/survival of life.
Sauron
That seems unlikely, but if you do indeed have a copy, you can start with chapter 5, paying particular attention to the section on fallacies of relevance.
...which seems indistinguishable from magic.
I can hardly be responsible for your perceptions, or how things "seem" to you. It's not magic, it's quantum mechanics. You may end up not believing that, and it's obvious you don't, but then again, I don't really care if you believe it or not. Those who are truly interested in the subject will be off looking it up for themselves, where they will confirm the correctness of what I say. Those who are not particularly interested in facts that may present some danger of contradicting a cherished worldview will continue to quibble. And so it goes.
:) I threw that out there to test you, see if you've taken logic. You haven't.
Yep, boys and girls, the shocking thing you learn in college when you take your symbolic logic course is that truth and validity are mutually exclusive.
It is possible to have a logically valid form that is untrue. They have truth tables in logic, too. It's a lotta fun.
I wasn't joking in #389. I will mail you the book on symbolic logic by Irving Copi.
It looks like you could use it.
Sauron (OK, I apologize, I was rude. Good thread, guys, but I have to leave for home soon.)
You believe the universe is infinitely old? Uncaused? Both?
I don't know (neither do you). I don't dwell on unanswerable questions. It's a waste of time. But don't let me stop you. Oh, and this also applies to the rest of your post.
One day, it may not seem like "magic," and we will see that, yes, what we thought was un-caused is in fact, caused.
Thus, I argue that all things are caused. They merely appear not to be. And our physics knowledge will continue to grow.
It is currently incorrect if it says (QT) that decay is uncaused. Patently wrong. It merely appears to us to be that way...for now.
In a century, that will seem a foolish idea.
Sauron
I thought my meaning was quite clear.
And your comments attacking me for it prove me right.
Sauron
As I thought.
I don't know (neither do you). I don't dwell on unanswerable questions.
UNANSWERABLE?
We know the universe did have an origin. Big Bang Theory. Kalam. Choose one. Choose both--they're congruent and complementary.
Unanswerable...sheesh, like you haven't ready any of the 300+ posts so far? ;)
Sauron
We know the universe did have an origin.
No 'we' don't. But apparently you think you do.
"Does anyone know where to look and what to look for? Also, newly-emerging proto life would most likely be eaten by bacteria.
Ahh, no, I'm not lettin' ya skate on that. I'm holding your rhetorical feet to the fire :P
We'd surely see EVIDENCE of this going on...and we don't. We have microsopes, dontchaknow. Didn'tchaknow? "
You are totally full of it. Organic molecules are so efficiently scavenged by soil and water microflora, that newly happening abiogenesis would never have a chance. Dontchknow. Get with the program.
VA is spot on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.