WorldGoneCrazy #fundie

WorldGoneCrazy #fundie disqus.com

(on William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument)

I can promise you that if Kalam had been refuted, it would not be in the citations of serious scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Could not get your link to load up, so how about debunking Kalam for me in this thread, with your own arguments?

"it's just rubbish" and "a laughingstock" and "genocide apologist"

See, these ad hominems are the kind of things we (former) Old Atheists would never have engaged in. We were actually too busy accomplishing things than to behave like 5 year olds in a school yard.

It sounds like Kalam is getting to you, if you cannot refute it for me on this thread. After all, you wrote "It isn't difficult at all to refute Kalam." Well, if it isn't difficult, go for it. :-) Besides, there is a Nobel Prize or something awaiting you when you DO refute it.

Say-so atheism really is the scourge of the planet.

31 comments

old comment by Ivurm

For those of you who don't know, the Kalam cosmological argument is as follows.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause;

and

2. The universe began to exist;

therefore;

3. The universe has a cause.

I don't think anyone would object to that.
Now it gets crazy;

1. The universe has a cause;

and

2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Therefore:

3. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

old comment by NotaReptile

Fine, why does your god get a special pass? Why shouldn't they be under the whole "needs a cause thing". The way I see it, either there's an infinite chain of progressively beardier wizards or Kalam is full of shit.

After all, if said god doesn't follow the laws of physics, they might as well not exist for all the good it'll do them. But if they are bound by the laws of physics, then they are a part of the universe and could not have caused it. A non physical god would have no means of interacting with physics, therefor no universe building for them.

A physical god would be just as mortal as everyone else, and would have to have come into being after or during the big bang (since the laws of physics have very little meaning during the pre-universe phase).

As for the no citations thing, you're an idiot, relying on memory or self-knowledge ignores the expertise of others. The peer-review process is built on self correction, if something is published that isn't true, it will eventually get found out and redacted. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.

old comment by Canadiest

Wedging the God in is a leap of faith. The entire belief is, yes, obviously forced in. There is nothing to suggest a God is even a necessity and less that the Christian God has an edge in any scenario.

W.L.Craigs entire debate method is blatant assertive monologues unchanging from debate to debate and offering not a shred of support. Believe me I've sacrificed the time to see if he changes but I haven't seen it AND in the q and as he avoids relevant questions with "not pertinent to the topic" and doesn't address the question when he does'answer'. AND The jerk literally says all philosophy is truth and all philosophies support Christianity.

When you hear about him or his fans complaining that they've stopped debating him it's because he brings nothing new, his act has changed less then Jeff Dunhams Peanut routine in the last decade. This is a huge Creationist failing actually, they all rehash old ideas that haven't any validity when they were introduced decades ago.

WorldGoneCrazy #fundie disqus.com

31 comments

Confused?