Kalaam

[Anon]

Why is this argument not sound? Why shouldn't I capitulate right now? I'm at the end of my rope with it. As far as I'm concerned, it hasn't been answered and I'm desperately, existentially afraid of the consequences of this. Please help.

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm not sure this is the subforum for refuting arguments for theism (the rules might preclude it), but you shouldn't accept an argument and "capitulate" unless you have good reasons to believe it's sound, even if you don't know whether it's unsound - so, the first question would be: why are you inclined to think it's sound?

That aside, I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment for a debate that might involve several people and is potentially very lon so I'll have to leave the debate for others.

Perhaps, if you're willing to defend the argument in a one-on-one debate (but you'd have to open the debate and explain why you're inclined to believe it's sound), I could accept that, as long as there is at least one week per to post each statement (so that I can use the weekend if required; I'm not sure if the rules of TW allow for debates that allow one week per statement, though, so that might not be possible.

In any case, I would suggest the Apologetics subforum, if you want to defend the argument against non-theists.

[Anon]

You're probably right. I think I'm going to rethink this thread to a more general one and put it in Apologetics.

[Seasanctuary]

Contrary to popular belief, science has not shown that the universe began to exist, let alone that the whole natural world began to exist.

[lao tzu]

Contrary to popular belief, science has not shown that the universe began to exist, let alone that the whole natural world began to exist.

That's just scratching the surface of the incoherence of Kalaam. Quantum theory fills the entire space-time continuum with particles beginning to exist without a cause. Kalaam is an argument for the classical world of the Greeks, and it died with Heisenberg.

Requiescat in pace, Kalaam.

[Conductor42]

Here's one for you old friend:

We are in one of many universes. The 'big bang' was simply the beginning of this universe.

[Conductor42]

Better thought :

How is the idea of an eternally existing multiverse any stranger than that of an eternally existing entity?
In fact, the ideas are not dissimilar in nature.

[WaitingForGodot]

Contrary to popular belief, science has not shown that the universe began to exist, let alone that the whole natural world began to exist.

And we don't have a shred of natural evidence that matter can ever be caused to exist, by anything, under any circumstance. We have no reason to think matter is contingent on anything.