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


 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 :


 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:


  • [FairfieldLife]... jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • Re: [Fairf... 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [F... jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... salyavin808
          • ... jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • ... salyavin808
            • ... anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
              • ... jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
                • ... anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • Re: [Fairf... Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • [Fairfield... salyavin808
      • [Fairf... jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • [F... salyavin808
          • ... TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • ... salyavin808

Reply via email to