Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Zakath
Resident Atheist
The MKAA, as presented, applies to the deity presented as Pastor Enyart's God so it applies to all humans affected by his deity. Since he alleges that his deity has sovereignty over all the human race, it would appear that the argument would apply to all humans.
There is of course, a small percentage of humans who are cognitively incapable of understanding or acting upon moral codes. Examples of those kinds of peope would be very young children, the severely mentally retarded, extereme psychotics, and those with advanced senile dementia. For them, the argument is moot since they cannot comprehend or act upon the issues involved.
P.S. - did anyone ever fall for your "chair" gambit?
There is of course, a small percentage of humans who are cognitively incapable of understanding or acting upon moral codes. Examples of those kinds of peope would be very young children, the severely mentally retarded, extereme psychotics, and those with advanced senile dementia. For them, the argument is moot since they cannot comprehend or act upon the issues involved.
P.S. - did anyone ever fall for your "chair" gambit?
Flipper
New member
RogerB:
I can't claim absolute certainty because I don't have absolute knowledge. However, as we are all discussing profitably here, there are reasonable causes to postulate a universe without the necessity of a God (which raises its own difficult questions).
Why I should accept the Christian position over any other religious belief is not clear in your question, unless it is because the punishment for not doing so is far more heinous than in any other religion...
Your experience is completely subjective and as a human, you can be misled and deluded. Therefore your absolute certainty is proof only to you. History is littered with examples of people who were absolutely certain of things they later turned out to be wrong about.
If Zakath has created reasonable doubt, and Bob has failed to show anything beyond circumstantial evidence and assertion, then the existence of God is neither proved nor disproved. Obviously, an absolutist may never accept that there are grounds for reasonable doubt, but I understand that most believers are plagued by 2nd thoughts on occasion.
I can't claim absolute certainty because I don't have absolute knowledge. However, as we are all discussing profitably here, there are reasonable causes to postulate a universe without the necessity of a God (which raises its own difficult questions).
Why I should accept the Christian position over any other religious belief is not clear in your question, unless it is because the punishment for not doing so is far more heinous than in any other religion...
Your experience is completely subjective and as a human, you can be misled and deluded. Therefore your absolute certainty is proof only to you. History is littered with examples of people who were absolutely certain of things they later turned out to be wrong about.
If Zakath has created reasonable doubt, and Bob has failed to show anything beyond circumstantial evidence and assertion, then the existence of God is neither proved nor disproved. Obviously, an absolutist may never accept that there are grounds for reasonable doubt, but I understand that most believers are plagued by 2nd thoughts on occasion.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Sure. It's his life.
In my case, I am reasonably certain, as contrasted with "absolutely certain", that the Christian deity does not exist. There are no guarantees in life. We all "places our bets and takes our chances." It seems that those who earnestly desire certainty like to bet on religion...
How so?
Charismata
New member
Mike check...is this thing on?
Mike check...is this thing on?
Again please find out more about the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Only things that begin to exist need a cause. God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. You are in serious error because you still don't understand what the christian argues.
There is no logical contradiction.
The kalam cosmological argument is simply the old first cause cosmological argument based on impossibility of an infinite temporal regress of events. It may be schematized:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Since the universe is the temporal series of events, the proof that that series had a beginning is taken to show that the universe began to exist. This conclusion has received strong empirical support from cosmological research in astronomy and astrophysics during the last fifty years. Since the universe began to exist a finite time ago, it must have been brought into being by a reality extra se.
Mike check...is this thing on?
Again please find out more about the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Only things that begin to exist need a cause. God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. You are in serious error because you still don't understand what the christian argues.
There is no logical contradiction.
The kalam cosmological argument is simply the old first cause cosmological argument based on impossibility of an infinite temporal regress of events. It may be schematized:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Since the universe is the temporal series of events, the proof that that series had a beginning is taken to show that the universe began to exist. This conclusion has received strong empirical support from cosmological research in astronomy and astrophysics during the last fifty years. Since the universe began to exist a finite time ago, it must have been brought into being by a reality extra se.
Last edited:
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Re: Mike check...is this thing on?
Re: Mike check...is this thing on?
Re: Mike check...is this thing on?
The Christian position is merely assertion. It is only necessary that the Christian God existed prior to the formation of the universe. What evidence do you have to indicate that the Christian God is without beginning?
- Status