---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :
Salyavin, Yes, I've tried to make the argument using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Complete rubbish isn't it? Or maybe you didn't get my encapsulation below? Saying there must have been a god because you can't explain something is like the police finding a murder victim and blaming a ghost because they haven't got any suspects. If there's one thing we've learned as a species is that the simplest explanation is always the best one. Self creating creators that magically create universes don't fit into that category for obvious logical reasons and aren't even necessary any more, it's only the need people have for there to have been a creator that they have to rely on this KCA sophistry. If you were paying attention a few days ago, I wasn't I'm afraid. Xeno tried to prove in his argument that he had no beginning. I'm pretty sure Xeno had a beginning.... it seems that god is the only thing you want not to have had one. I then realized that this line of reasoning was absurd. So, I bowed out from further discussion. It appears that Xeno believed his rationale was strong and logical. But apparently you think that his position was absurd as well. Don;t jump to conclusions! Xeno is one of the most careful and precise thinkers here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Richard, That's exactly right. Erm, that statement agrees with me. It's you who has to prove your god, you who has made the metaphysical assumption. Therefore, the atheist's position is very weak and absurd. You can see this weakness when they try to make arguments against the Kalam Cosmological Argument. IMO, their arguments become absurd and nonsensical. The KCA is a crock, how can there be an uncaused creator god when you've already decided the reason he has to exist is because things can't exist without a cause? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : On 11/4/2014 12:00 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: The federal government recognizes secular humanism as a religion. That means atheists have faith in the nonexistence of a god. But can they prove that God is nonexistent? > It's almost impossible to prove a negative, even if your include in your argument the Law of the Excluded Middle. By the mere mention of a entity in their argument they have already postulated a metaphysical assumption. Without definitions, the argument is circular ending with a reductio ad absurdum. Any statement, when taken to extremes, will be found to be self-contradictory. " Zeno has argued that if as the pluralists say things are many, then they will be both like and unlike; but this is an impossible situation, for unlike things cannot be like, nor like things unlike." Plato's Parmenides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_%28dialogue%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_%28dialogue%29 > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/atheist-religion-oregon-court_n_6095776.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/03/atheist-religion-oregon-court_n_6095776.html
