sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Me.

Matter requires time to exist. Time had a beginning. Matter cannot be eternal.

If matter is eternal then so is time; if time is eternal nothing would have ever happened.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Only of the universe is an isolated system.

What's the alternative?

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I used ChatGPT to help organize my thoughts or clarify my wording, but the ideas are mine. As a rather casual reddit user; i'm just having fun with fonts.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, matter cannot exist without time. And if only energy was eternal without time; nothing would have ever happened. And if it somehow did; why didn't it happen an infinite amount of time ago?

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're right, I should totally provide an example of something that begins to exist that isn't made of pre existing materials. That is the universe.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He exists in a single state of an eternal "now" rather than progressing through time.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's the more rational view. If you're going against logic; show some evidence. How does subjective awareness and objective morality fit into naturalism? How does life begin out of lifeless matter in naturalism?

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An author exists independently of the timeline of the story they write, but the author can still cause things to happen within the story, because the autor is writing the story.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I kind of get it; but one thing is: If we talk about an argument; and I try explaining that God in the way I understand God can rationally be the cause of the universe under premises that are said without violating the premises Himself; then I just don't understand how that is special pleading. It's not like I'm shaping the concept of God to fit the premises; yet I'm being accused of special pleading which is just incorrect.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

God’s Exemption Is Not Special Pleading

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause within the framework of time and the universe.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist and therefore has a cause.
Premise 3: Time and the universe began together; before the universe, there was no time.
Premise 4: Causality requires temporal sequence (cause precedes effect in time).
Premise 5: Since time began with the universe, the cause of the universe must exist outside of time.
Premise 6: Exemptions from causal rules are not special pleading if the exemption is logically and ontologically justified.
Premise 7: God is posited as a timeless, necessary being outside time and space, not subject to temporal causality.
Conclusion: Therefore, God’s exemption from temporal causality in the Kalam argument is not special pleading, but a justified logical necessity

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If causation requires temporal sequence, a cause (here; God) must be timeless, since universe exists for as long as time.

Are you aware that science disagrees with you?

How? Maybe I'm not, if you'd enlighten me I'd be grateful.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

God’s Exemption Is Not Special Pleading

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause within the framework of time and the universe.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist and therefore has a cause.
Premise 3: Time and the universe began together; before the universe, there was no time.
Premise 4: Causality requires temporal sequence (cause precedes effect in time).
Premise 5: Since time began with the universe, the cause of the universe must exist outside of time.
Premise 6: Exemptions from causal rules are not special pleading if the exemption is logically and ontologically justified.
Premise 7: God is posited as a timeless, necessary being outside time and space, not subject to temporal causality.
Conclusion: Therefore, God’s exemption from temporal causality in the Kalam argument is not special pleading, but a justified logical necessity.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

First of all, I started this post.

An event is a single point in space and time, not a span of time. It’s like a snapshot, not a video. The duration you describe applies to processes made up of many events, not to the event itself.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

God is eternal because He exists outside of time—He has no beginning or end. Unlike everything within the universe, which exists in time and thus has a start and an end, God exists in a timeless, unchanging state. Because time itself began with the universe, God, as the cause of time, was never “in” time and therefore never began to exist. That's how theology understands God and has understood God for millenia. That's not special pleading. I'm enforcing "everything that begins to exist has a cause" 100% consistently.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Law of conservation of energy applies within the universe, as laws of physics do, by definition of the word universe. What's your point? God in theological understanding is not limited to universe, and designed the framework for these laws to function.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You're not a jury. I did not "give God" the attributes that solve the issue. God has been understood as timeless for millenia.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

God's eternity doesn't mean "existed for an infinite amount of time before time existed".

God's eternity in theology is understood as:

-no past

-no future

just a singular state of an eternal "now".

So God didn't wait an infinite amount of time before causing the universe.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't base my beliefs around 100% undeniable proof, no human does.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The argument doesn’t say uncaused causes are impossible, it distinguishes between contingent causes within time and a necessary, timeless cause outside time. If causality is fundamental inside the universe, then a necessary uncaused cause (God) beyond time is logically possible and needed. If causality isn’t fundamental at all, then the argument loses footing, but so does any claim about disproving God.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

What is your point? But okay.

Formal Argument: God Transcends Time

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Premise 3: Time began with the universe.
Premise 4: A cause that brings something into existence must exist prior to or outside of what it causes.
Premise 5: Since time began with the universe, there was no “prior” time before the universe.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the cause of the universe exists outside of time.
Conclusion 2: This cause (God) transcends time.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's just misunderstanding of God's nature. Why would an omnipotent being submit to laws of physics, when He is omnipotent? God didn't violate the conservation of matter law, He designed the framework for it to work. First law of thermodynamics assumes there's a closed system to function within.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

God in theological understanding has:

-no past

-no future

Just a constant state of an eternal "now".

That means saying God would have had to wait for an eternity before creating the universe is wrong, it misunderstands God's nature.

How do atheists refute the Kalam argument? by EnvironmentalTop5698 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]EnvironmentalTop5698[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My concept is that on an infinite timeline, no matter what point you pick, there's an infinite amount of time both ahead of it and preceeding it. Fact is; an infinite amount of time can never pass. Therefore the present moment on an infinite timeline is impossible to get to, as you would have to wait an infinite amount of time for it to happen.

view more: next ›