Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Get in the Ring → Ringside seats → Kalam cosmological argument.

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 05:47 AM
New Britain
April 16, 2024, 12:05 AM
Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM
عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM
Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM
What's happened to the fo...
April 11, 2024, 01:00 AM
Lights on the way
by akay
February 01, 2024, 12:10 PM
Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM
Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM
Pakistan: The Nation.....
January 28, 2024, 02:12 PM
Gaza assault
January 27, 2024, 01:08 PM
Nawal El Saadawi: Egypt's...
January 27, 2024, 12:24 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Kalam cosmological argument.

 (Read 18786 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #30 - March 22, 2014, 12:37 AM
    Don't worry about it. Just go ahead and do your stuff.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #31 - March 22, 2014, 12:38 AM
    Thanks, Sorry about it.. I think I'll need to take a break from CEMB soon or you guys will be forced to observe my prickish nature.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #32 - March 22, 2014, 12:41 AM
    You can be a prick. Most of us have got thick skin.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #33 - March 22, 2014, 12:46 AM
    Fair enough, I just don't like being one.

    As for the debate, do I have any takers?  (probably everyone on this forum haha)
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #34 - March 22, 2014, 12:55 AM
    Just post your objections to the argument's validity here. I can't imagine the discussion lasting long, since the argument is obviously valid. Unless you've got a surprise up your sleeve.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #35 - March 22, 2014, 12:56 AM
    [quote auth
    Quote from: happymurtad on March 22, 2014, 12:02 AM
    So if I say, "All giraffes are green. The sun is a type of giraffe. Therefore, the sun is green," that argument would be valid but not sound?


    Hi HM, I believe that I misread your statement.
    It doesn't follow a formal deductive structure so I would argue that it isn't valid or sound.

    One of the correct modus ponens structures:

    (1) If A, then B.
    (2) A,
    Therefore B.

    Your argument would follow this structure if you stated that :  All giraffes are green, the sun is green.   The Sun is green, therefore the Sun is a giraffe. There are also other variants of this argument which are internally valid. (i.e. the conclusion follows from the premises, not necessarily based on truth).


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #36 - March 22, 2014, 12:57 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on March 22, 2014, 12:55 AM
    Just post your objections to the argument's validity here. I can't imagine the discussion lasting long, since the argument is obviously valid. Unless you've got a surprise up your sleeve.


    Meh, I really wanted to test out my objections in a debate structure... I'll wait in the hope that someone accepts.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Re: Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #37 - March 22, 2014, 01:00 AM
    Quote from: Qtian on March 22, 2014, 12:56 AM
    It doesn't follow a formal deductive structure so I would argue that it isn't valid or sound.

    It is valid.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #38 - March 22, 2014, 01:04 AM
    Could you explain which structure it follows? I cant see which exact formal structure it adheres to.
    It may be valid, I'm not saying that you're wrong.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #39 - March 22, 2014, 01:08 AM
    Let's break it down, it definitely isn't sound, that's ruled out.
    Valid arguments are based on whether or not the conclusion follows from the premises. I am struggling to differentiate between the conclusion and premises in this argument.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #40 - March 22, 2014, 01:08 AM
    All men are mortal
    Socrates is a man
    Therefore, Socrates is mortal

    All men are green
    Socrates is a man
    Therefore, Socrates is green

    All giraffes are mortal
    The sun is a giraffe
    Therefore, the sun is mortal

    All giraffes are green
    The sun is a giraffe
    Therefore, the sun is green
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #41 - March 22, 2014, 01:11 AM
    All giraffes are green. The sun is a type of giraffe. Therefore, the sun is green,"

    Example of valid deductive argument (used this before).

    If socrates is a man, socrates is mortal.
    soc. is a man,
    Therefore, soc. is mortal.

    I can't see how this giraffe argument follows any of the variants or even modus tollens.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #42 - March 22, 2014, 01:14 AM
    But isn't the form:

    A--->B
    A,
    Therefore B.

    For some reason I can't see that here, I'm probably just being stupid.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #43 - March 22, 2014, 01:17 AM
    Likewise,  B--->A
    B,
    Therefore, A.

    A--->B
    not A,
    therefore not B
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #44 - March 22, 2014, 01:19 AM
    All giraffes are green
    The sun is a giraffe
    Therefore, the sun is green

    I'd see it as valid if:

    If the sun is green, the sun is a giraffe.
    The sun is a green
    Therefore the sun is a giraffe.

    (or any other valid combos. of B and A)
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #45 - March 22, 2014, 01:21 AM
    Dude, it's a basic categorical syllogism. Go to sleep and look at it again in the morning.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #46 - March 22, 2014, 01:23 AM
    Ah fuck me, you're completely correct. That slipped my mind, thanks for correcting me lol... I just couldn't find the traditional modus ponens in it, I forgot about other structures.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #47 - March 22, 2014, 01:24 AM
    You are so right,
    I.e.

    All men are mortal
    Qtian is a man,
    Therefore Qtian is mortal.

    I should have stuck with my initial statement of the giraffe syllogism being valid before I acted like an idiot haha
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #48 - March 22, 2014, 01:26 AM
    You're over thinking it  Tongue
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #49 - March 22, 2014, 01:29 AM
    Indeed, I'm kind of disgusted at myself for missing something so elementary. I really think that I'm going to take a break from CEMB and YouTube and stuff, thanks Ishina.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #50 - March 22, 2014, 01:34 AM
    Don't burn yourself out. Take a break.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #51 - March 22, 2014, 01:36 AM
    Yeah it's exactly what I need to do, I think all this CEMB & YouTube stuff (through no fault of the actual forum) has been fucking me over, it's very hard to explain so I wont bother.

    See you in a few months hopefully.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #52 - March 22, 2014, 01:40 AM
    Take it easy.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #53 - February 06, 2015, 08:38 PM
    So what happened? The giraffes are not green anymore?
    I was hoping to read something lengthy.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #54 - February 06, 2015, 08:46 PM
    There is nothing to debate really, the KCA is logically valid.

    The only way I could try to argue it's invalidity would be through an ex materia/ ex nihilo equivocation, and I can't be bothered/ nor do I have enough knowledge of the relevant topics. And even if that is successful, I don't think it undermines the KCAs validity, especially in its modus ponens form.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #55 - February 06, 2015, 08:48 PM
    Qtian, have you ever debated a presuppositionalist? They are the most annoying of all apologists, and this is the direction Islamic apologetics is heading at the moment.

    Since Sean Carroll entered the arena, Kalam is pretty comprehensively handled.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #56 - February 06, 2015, 08:50 PM
    Yeah, I love Sean Carroll. He's probably my favourite Physics communicator because he actually understands Philosophy. Unlike Krauss, Tyson etc... since their actual argument against philosophy is a category error.

    http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-Philosophy/

    And indeed I have, they are pointless imho.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #57 - February 06, 2015, 08:52 PM
    The general approach being along the lines of "If God doesn't ground your being, you can't know anything for sure".

    That's a blatant conflation of ontology and epistemology.

    I've made a thread which is related to this issue: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27992.0
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #58 - February 06, 2015, 08:54 PM
    or 'accounting' for laws of nature/logic/induction
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #59 - February 06, 2015, 08:57 PM
    Lol, the LDM types know nothing beyond a basic definition of logic. If you actually try to push them mathematically, they crumble. I can recall Imran Hussein confusing deduction with induction during a dawah session.

    I'll bet that they've never heard of paraconsistent logics. Logic being "Godly" is a misnomer, logics are just axiom systems which live in the space of all possible axiom systems.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »