You continue to avoid jr's question, due to weak reasoning. Obviously none of 
us were around even a hundred years ago. Nonetheless, your argument that you 
don't know cause you weren't there (as time and space were getting their act 
together), is not a very good one.  

 Using this weak logic, one could then claim, that because we are not yet 
familiar with the quantum mechanics involved, when a zygote is produced, that 
the creation of a human being, is also random. One could always hide behind the 
limitations of science, and claim thus and such, is meaningless, and has no 
inherent cause to exist, simply because science has not anointed it with some 
sort of temporary explanation. 

 So, no go, on the "I can't come up with an example, because I was not there". 
You simply do not have the consciousness at this time, to apprehend God, the 
experience of which is more the natural result of an unencumbered nervous 
system, than pie in the sky belief, or even faith.

---In, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :

 --In, <jr_esq@...> wrote :

 I have asked Curtis about his support or evidence for disagreeing with the 
statements in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. 

M: My "evidence" was to point out that the assumption is not necessarily so, 
especially at the scales of the beginning of creation. You then asked me give 
an example of something that does not have a cause,which is absurd because I am 
only familiar with biological processes at my own sensory scale. I have no idea 
what the rules are before space and time are relevant. Some physicists who do 
think about these scales believe that quantum processes begin to exist but have 
no cause. So my point is that it is not necessarily so and cannot be used as a 
first irrefutable part of a syllogism stands as a refutation to the conclusion 
because of flawed premises. 

 J: But he just gave me a lot of song and dance about his opinions without 
providing the evidence for his arguments. 

M: Right, you didn't understand my point so I was doing a "song and dance." 
Very intellectual of you.
You don't even seem to understand the use of syllogisms or how they are 
constructed to preserve rater than generate truth. So why don't you just say 
you believe in God because you believe in God. It saves a lot of song and dance 
of flawed syllogisms. 

 Can you give us a solid argument with evidence and support why the statements 
in the KCA have a flaw?

 Let's take the KCA which states:

 Everything that begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; 
Therefore: The universe has a cause. Do you agree with statement 1 or not?  If 
not, please give us your reasons for disagreeing.



---In, <anartaxius@...> wrote :

 Logical arguments about ultimates always contain a flaw. You can reverse the 
form of the argument to support atheism and if you do not see the flaw, it will 
seem equally valid, that is, that atheism is true. Now there are some atheists 
who definitely believe there is no god and they can be as fanatical as a 
fundamentalist religionist. Probably they would have no sense of humour about 
their condition. But a real atheist simply lacks a particular kind of belief 
because that belief seems neither reasonable or likely. They basically just do 
not care. Barry is just testing memes to see what happens when they are 
activated. We all have memes which are basically little snippets of mental 
routines our minds use. We trade them with each other, but for the most part 
these mental stances are just our opinions about the world around us and we 
tend to be be rather uncritical as to how well they really represent what is 
real, while at the same time taking them as reality itself. 

 Take the TMO memes. On FFL, meditators and former meditators all at one time 
believed certain things about experience were at least possible, for example, 
that if you practice TM, which is not a religion, you will find God. The TMO 
memes specify that we are in a state of ignorance, not knowing the nature of 
reality. But were we actually in the state of ignorance, we would not have the 
capability to correctly evaluate what we were told because we would be using 
delusional thinking to evaluate ideas such as transcendence, states of 
consciousness and so forth, so our following this system of thought about 
reality would essentially be an act of insanity, that is, mental illness. The 
system defines us as in some way incapacitated in knowing what is real, and 
then expects us to just jump in, and accept what the system says is real. 

 A discussion of the Kalam argument:

 Cosmological Kalamity 
 Cosmological Kalamity Home » Library » 
Modern » Dan Barker »   Cosmological Kalamity Dan Barker "Daddy, if God made 
everything, who made God?" my daughter Kristi asked me, when she was five years 

 View on
 Preview by Yahoo 



---In, <jr_esq@...> wrote :


 Have you ever thought that atheism is also a belief-- and an unreasonable one 
at that?  The Kalam Cosmological Argument should dispel any of your doubts.



          • ... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
          • ... [FairfieldLife]
          • ... [FairfieldLife]
          • ... [FairfieldLife]
          • ... [FairfieldLife]
      • [Fairf... [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [F... TurquoiseBee [FairfieldLife]
  • Re: [FairfieldL... TurquoiseBee [FairfieldLife]
  • [FairfieldLife]... [FairfieldLife]
    • [Fairfield... [FairfieldLife]
      • [Fairf... [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... [FairfieldLife]
    • [Fairfield... [FairfieldLife]
      • [Fairf... Duveyoung
      • [Fairf... [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... [FairfieldLife]
          • ... [FairfieldLife]
          • ... [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... [FairfieldLife]
          • ... [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to