we are up to like 10 times now where you are trying to turn the argument into me saying that god is, so you can say prove it. It is not the argument and the tactic is getting tiresome

No problem. But that’s it then: A reason for believing, plus faith, or “an act of reasoned belief”, and there’s your Christian — AJJ

There's a problem if you're calling "faith" what I mean by “an act of reasoned belief”, as I think that that's misleading. But otherwise, sure, it's either faith or reasoned belief. And the former is unreasonable by nature, whereas the latter might or might not be reasonable, and in the case of Christianity, I remain unconvinced that any argument for the existence of God - including your Kalam - is reasonable, i.e. logically sound.

if your point is, that either god is or god is not is a fact. I say yes it is one or the other. — Rank Amateur

My proposition was and is whether god is or is not is not a matter of fact. — Rank Amateur

Whaaaaaat? :chin:

I don't understand how these two seemingly contradictory statements can be compatible. Unless maybe you're misusing the terms involved.

we are up to like 10 times now where you are trying to turn the argument into me saying that god is, so you can say prove it. It is not the argument and the tactic is getting tiresome — Rank Amateur

Wow, ten times and you're still misunderstanding what I'm doing. Right now, the only thing that matters is simply whether or not it's a matter of fact. That's what I'm going after, arguing that it is a matter of fact, and that's where we got stuck, because you started to change the subject, as you're doing once again.

you gave me a dichotomous choice either a is or a is not. It is a fact that a is or a is not. That does not make a fact that we know which is true. This is not that hard.

Then you have to show where the Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound. Philosophy dictates that you can’t just declare it so.

Then you have to show where the Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound. Philosophy dictates that you can’t just declare it so. — Noah Te Stroete

And you can't conclude a conclusion that doesn't have anything to do with the actual conclusion of the argument. Assumptions about what the conclusion to the Kalam Cosmological Argument is, does not equal those assumptions to be the true conclusion.

If you need a good sum of why the argument is flawed, please watch this.

I don’t watch videos on philosophy forums. Lay out the argument in the video, and then I will respond.

you gave me a dichotomous choice either a is or a is not. It is a fact that a is or a is not. That does not make a fact that we know which is true. This is not that hard. — Rank Amateur

You seem to have misunderstood. Maybe we're talking past each other because you're misinterpreting the phrase, "matter of fact". I did point out this problem right at the beginning, and explained the correct way to use it.

When I'm saying that whether or not God exists is a matter of fact, I'm not saying anything about the actual status of either possibility. When I'm saying that whether or not God exists is a matter of fact, I'm saying that it's the sort of issue that's about what is the case or the present state of affairs. When you say things like, "Whether God exists is not a matter of fact" if this isn't what you mean, then you're going to keep being misinterpreted over and over again. If this is the case, then you really need to sort it out. Surely you can see how much of a problem it has been. And this isn't the first time. You're stuck in your ways.

I've made the case that it's a matter of fact. That it's an issue that is a worldly matter, a matter about what is the case; specifically, whether or not a supernatural entity or being, which we can call "God", exists.

What else could it be, if not a matter of fact?

I don’t watch videos on philosophy forums. Lay out the argument in the video, and then I will respond. — Noah Te Stroete

The video is deconstructing the argument in detail much better than me transcribing it here. If you really want an explanation on why the argument fails, then you might need to put in some time and effort to listen to those who dispute it. To just ignore when a sound deconstruction is presented just because it's a video pretty much sums up that you are not interested in actual arguments, you just seem to want to hold your ground about this. That, if anything, is NOT philosophy.

The Kalam argument only points to there being a first cause that caused the universe, it does not conclude anything else and assuming anything else is a fallacy. If you want more depth, see the video.

If the argument is that the attributes given to God cannot be concluded from the premises, then I will agree to that. I used that objection when I was an atheist. However, the need for a cause of the universe is still there, and the so-called “scientific” causes are also posited faiths.

However, the need for a cause of the universe is still there, and the so-called “scientific” causes are also posited faiths. — Noah Te Stroete

Scientific causes are based in hypotheses and theories and no one of them is concluding anything to be true. Faith and religion settle down with it being God. That is a logical misstep. Science has much more pressure to prove something and if you believe that they present something equal to faith you misunderstand the scientific process entirely. You need to prove that the first cause, if you can prove there to be a first cause and not for example circular time is the truth, is God. If you can't, the Kalam argument doesn't prove anything. It's actually a pretty weak argument saying essentially nothing outside of common sense about causality really. So the Kalam argument does not have anything to do with God and any notion it does is a fallacy if it's not proven. Burden of proof still applies, or the teapots will fly around the sun, if you understand that reference.

When I'm saying that whether or not God exists is a matter of fact, I'm saying that it's the sort of issue that's about what is the case or the present state of affairs — S

What is the current state of affairs as to the existence of God then ? Please complete the thought so some one as challenged as myself can understand

Then you have to show where the Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound. Philosophy dictates that you can’t just declare it so. — Noah Te Stroete

Show me where I've declared it so. You can't. What I actually said was that I remain unconvinced that it's sound.

I write carefully, and you read recklessly. A match made in heaven. Or not.

My point was that so-called “scientific” hypotheses about the origin of the universe or what caused the Big Bang are untestable, unverifiable conjectures, pure metaphysics. As such, they are not really science.

Show me where I've declared it so. You can't. What I actually said was that I remain unconvinced that it's sound. — S

It is sound, in describing that something must be the first cause of all the causality. It doesn't prove anything else than that. But one could argue that the argument assumes the first cause to be defined by our universal laws and what we can measure with scientific methods at this time in history. If we can't define the first cause, we don't even know if we can pinpoint it as a first cause in the timeline of our time dimension. So the argument in a way assumes a lot about its conclusion, even if we detach it from the idea of God. It really doesn't do much as an argument since so much of the premises needs to be proven before the conclusion.

It's a very weak argument that requires belief and assumptions to work, meaning it's flawed, at best says there was a Big Bang... which we already know through scientific theories.

Then say “why” you are unconvinced that it is sound. Then Rank Amateur, AJJ, and you can have something consequential to argue about.

If the argument is that the attributes given to God cannot be concluded from the premises, then I will agree to that. I used that objection when I was an atheist. However, the need for a cause of the universe is still there, and the so-called “scientific” causes are also posited faiths. — Noah Te Stroete

Odd. You give the impression here that you're okay with some sort of minimalist definition of God as a first cause, which barely even counts as a God in any meaningful sense. That clashes with the God of your romantic wishful thinking in the other discussion.

I’ve always argued that certain things are a matter of faith. I’m just showing that most if not all of us have faith in something.

My P6 only says

P6. There are arguments – based on reason – an “un-created – creator” existed
And I grant as below
P7. The arguments if P6 – have reasonable counter arguments — Rank Amateur

What is the current state of affairs as to the existence of God then? Please complete the thought so some one as challenged as myself can understand. — Rank Amateur

I'm not sure why you're skipping ahead and asking me that question. I first wanted to make sure that we were on the same semantic page regarding matters of fact in the hope of avoiding any further misunderstandings.

I can of course only justifiably tell you about my knowledge of the current state of affairs, and that knowledge leads me to conclude that it's either the case that neither of us know whether or not God exists, or you know more than I do on this one, the latter of which remains to be seen before you get too ahead of yourself. In philosophy, you must demonstrate your knowledge. So if you claim to know more than I do on this one, such that you reach a different conclusion, then I ask that you point me to this demonstration.

This is where you could of course point to some argument, like the cosmological argument. But the jury is out on that one, at best.

My point was that so-called “scientific” hypotheses about the origin of the universe or what caused the Big Bang are untestable, unverifiable conjectures, pure metaphysics. As such, they are not really science. — Noah Te Stroete

A hypothesis is a qualified guess not yet proven. That is not the same as the type of guesswork that apologists do when trying to use philosophical arguments. The scientific process is pretty solid in what it does, it does not conclude any answers until they are scientific theories. You are also pinpointing testing Big Bang as being untestable. That would require you to be able to conclude that science will not ever be able to test or measure these things into proven theories. You do not know that and it comes off as the people saying people would never fly and then we did. That's a lot of assumptions about science in order to defend the Kalam argument, but it requires you to know all the scientific discoveries in the future.

If the Kalam argument was to be solid, there can't be anything that can refute it. Assuming things about science or God does not make the argument correct. That is why it fails.

Pointing out that science is equal to faith by pointing out that hypotheses aren't proven is a misunderstanding of what a hypothesis is and also a simplification of the scientific process in order to support an argument that science is flawed. The difference between science and religion is that science requires burden of proof to be fulfilled and it never points to hypotheses being anything other than qualified guesses. But even with qualified guesses, they are still rooted in much more solid grounds through already proven theories and facts than proposing ideas about God on top of an argument that doesn't even connect to it, which is what religious apologists does.

The big difference is that science evolves and changes their view on a subject by testing and working it out through logic and measurements in order to reach as close to truth as possible. Religion doesn't do that, it concludes without proper logical reasoning and fills in gaps to fit the narrative. The two aren't even comparable.

A good example of an "unprovable" hypothesis is the one about the Higgs Boson field and also the one about gravitational waves. Both were recently proven to be true and measurable. Assuming that science can't answer something based on what we can't answer today, ignoring any possibility of answering it in the future, is a big logical misstep.

I can of course only justifiably tell you about my knowledge of the current state of affairs, and that knowledge leads me to conclude that it's either the case that neither of us know whether or not God exists, or you know more than I do on this one . — S

And this is different from my point that is is not a fact that God is or God is not how exactly

And this is different from my point that is is not a fact that God is or God is not how exactly. — Rank Amateur

I'm getting tired of these ambiguous statements from you where it isn't clear what you mean. We've been here so many times before, and I don't want to get sucked in again.

Perhaps you are not familiar with philosophers’ objections to calling String Theory and M Theory “science” in that they are not even conceivably testable? They are metaphysics. Not true scientific theories.

To recap the latest

I say it is not a matter of fact that either God is or god is not
You say no it is about a state of affairs
I say what are the state of affairs about the existence of God
You say neither you or I know
I say what is the difference
You get mad

Please

To recap the latest

I say it is not a matter of fact that either God is or god is not
You say no it is about a state of affairs
I say what are the state of affairs about the existence of God
You say neither you or I know
I say what is the difference
You get mad — Rank Amateur

Oh god. What a muddle you're turning this into. You've hastily skipped ahead. Don't try to run before you can walk. I already told you that when I'm saying that whether or not God exists is a matter of fact, I'm not saying anything about the actual status of either possibility. You then question me about the actual status. And this is somehow my fault, not yours.

Perhaps you are not familiar with philosophers’ objections to calling String Theory and M Theory “not science” in that they are not even conceivably testable? They are metaphysics. Not true scientific theories. — Noah Te Stroete

They have a foundation in already proven theories and facts. They are hypotheses. Just like I said the Higgs Boson field and Gravitational waves were unprovable and considered "fantasy" by those criticizing science. They are both proved to be true. The difference is that the science community does not conclude them to be true, they know they are hypotheses and nothing more. But religious apologists use this to propose that "therefore our ideas could be true", which is a fallacy. And the Kalam argument still doesn't do much, even if we in the end proves there to be a sentient being kickstarting the universe and Big Bang, that in itself still doesn't underline that this being is "God". The confusion about hypotheses and theories as concepts in the scientific world seem to be a big reason why people don't understand the ideas proposed. No one who is educated about string theory or m-theory propose them to be true, but they are also not rooted in fantasy but already established science, which means they are qualified guesses compared to just guesses. The difference between the two is night and day.

I have no clue at all what you are saying about the factual existence of god and neither do you.

No. They are unprovable, untestable hypotheses. There are no CONCEIVABLE experiments to test their validity. This was not the case with the Higgs Boson.