--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :

 Or, that you're pulling a Curtis on us.

M: It has not gone unnoticed that these little snipes are in place of your 
actually refuting what I wrote reasonably. It was you who proposed that the 
silly syllogism was a proof for God that would silence Barry in the first place.

Here is the problem. It turns out that you don't understand the basics of what 
a syllogism does in philosophy, so you can't follow the argument showing what 
the problem with it is.
Philosophy is one of those weird fields where people think they can just jump 
in and do it with no training in it. If you don't understand how these tools 
are used, or the history of their use and subsequent corrections in 
philosophical history, you make the obvious error of mistaking something being 
logical with there being a higher probability that it is true. In our daily 
lives we conflate these two concepts all the time. But in philosophy the are 
technical terms for specific things and they are only tangentially related.

If you want to use a formal syllogism to bolster up an unfounded assertion, you 
really need to adhere to how philosophy operates and you might want to crack a 
book and actually study the necessary fundamentals to discuss it beyond the 
trollish snipe level.

Or fly your freak flag high and admit that you have a belief that has nothing 
to do with all this faux philosophy presentation, you just believe it for your 
own reasons that satisfy you. You don't have to try to dress it up as something 
it is not: a logical conclusion from an irrefutable premise. Just stop the 
philosophical front'n routine and enjoy your personal beliefs for what they 
are, your personal beliefs. 

The Kalam argument is a favorite of people who are God believers talking to a 
non philosophically trained audience. It is the intellectual equivalent of an 
actor in a TV commercial donning a white coat with a stethoscope around his 
neck for the appearance of credibility and declaring that 3 out of 4 doctors 
surveyed prefer X brand hemorrhoid cream. It's just buttastic!  


 Are you saying that the human mind would not be able to fathom the meaning of 
"begins to exist"?  If that is so, how is it possible for you to begin and end 
a project at work or at home?

 But we know that NASA has been able to send the Curiosity rover to Mars which 
is a very high technological feat.  So,  it appears that humans know can 
understand the meaning of "begins to exist".  If not, NASA would not have been 
able to send the rover to Mars.

 I believe you're avoiding the question by claiming that you don't know what 
statement 1 of the KCA means.  In other words, you're being disingenuous.  Or, 
that you're pulling a Curtis on us.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote :

 x exists x does not exist

 I do not know what the phrase 'begins to exist' means, especially in regard to 
the universe as a whole. If x were an auto-mobile, perhaps one could say that 
when it was partially assembled, it began to exist, but all the components of 
that were manufactured prior to that and merely gathered together with welds, 
bolts, and glue. And those parts had precursors, ad infinitum (almost) to the 
beginning of the universe, before which we have no knowledge, and in fact we 
have only induction as to regard the early universe. And induction is logically 

 The link I gave in the previous post did do some analysis why the Kalam 
argument is flawed, apparently you did not read it. Here it is again: 
Cosmological Kalamity 
 Cosmological Kalamity 
http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html 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 infidels.org 
 Preview by Yahoo 



 I do not know how the universe began.
 I do not know what 'begins to exist' means in this context, can you fill in 
some detail?
 If this were science, all I would have to do is wait for your demonstration of 
the truth of the argument, but as it seems no one knows, I doubt this would be 
forthcoming. As Curtis pointed out, proving a negative is impossible. It is a 
time waster. In science one simply ignores those who do not show up with 
evidence for their claims and thus science ('to know' is the meaning of the 
word) only works with people who actively produce results.

 For all I know the Kalam argument might be accidentally true, but essentially 
I just find it unconvincing. If god is un-caused, then god did not begin to 
exist, and if god did not begin to exist, he cannot exist. The word everything 
would seem to include what is called god, other wise, the first sentence 
includes a false concept. We would have not 'everything that begins to exist 
has a cause', and then we would have a number of possible things that were 
un-caused. For example, Zeus, the king of the gods, a step higher in divinity 
than the other gods, of which perhaps your god is one of those lesser ones.

 I can say on the basis of experience, that the universe was re-created this 
morning when I woke up. It was recreated again this morning and this evening 
when I came out of meditation after a timeless spell (I am not saying what sort 
of meditation was happening or not). I am un-caused, and therefore I must not 
be beginning to exist, and therefore I am not the universe, but seeing the 
universe seemed to emerge from what I am, I must be a creator of some sort. So 
if this happens with me, what am I? I must be more than a human form and mind, 
being able to contain all this.

 Since in my own estimation, I seem to have created the universe, where does 
that leave your argument? If the universe has a cause, how do you determine 
what that cause is or is not? Simply stating that the universe has a cause does 
not reveal the nature of the cause. It could be a quantum fluctuation in a 
multi-verse continuum. With multi-verses, maybe some have gods, and some do 
not. Maybe some are created by farts in a hyper-cosmic digestive system.


 You have also not mentioned the argument that the universe has no cause. 
Suppose we say, that in spite of all appearances, the universe has no cause at 
all. It was a spontaneous event that had no priors; that would mean that all 
the stuff in the universe ultimately had no cause either, the stuff within 
would have prior events but ultimately could not be traced back to a primal 
cause. Accidental existence. Perhaps we are all part of an unwanted pregnancy.
 Curtis is actually much better at this kind of reasoning than I am. I think he 
just wanted you to provide a positive example of the stipulation you made, 
something he could work with. A philosopher needs an argument, and needs to be 
able to state the other person's position accurately so they can look for a 
weakness in definition of terms and logic. You need to provide that. Otherwise 
you are not worth his time. He might as well waste his time with a 
Bible-thumping preacher from Hicksville. His time would be better spent 
teaching kids critical thinking. I can tell you when I was young in school, 
this is a skill that was not taught. America is a nation of idiots and climbing 
out of that pit of un-reason is no easy task. To be fair, had I ever remained 
in Greece, I doubt I would have fared better, though there are more 
opportunities for causes way back at the beginning of our place in the scheme 
of things:

 Greek gods prepare for comeback 
 Greek gods prepare for comeback 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/05/greece It has taken almost 2,000 
years, but those who worship the 12 gods of ancient Greece have finally 
triumphed. An Athens court has ordered that the adulation of...

 View on www.theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/05/greece
 Preview by Yahoo 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :


 I have asked Curtis about his support or evidence for disagreeing with the 
statements in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  But he just gave me a lot of 
song and dance about his opinions without providing the evidence for his 
arguments.  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.



        • Re... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
      • [Fairf... curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • Re: [Fairf... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
  • Re: [FairfieldL... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • Re: [Fairf... fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [F... dhamiltony...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... nablusoss1008
        • Re... curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to